The incredibly stupid CRU-gate story just got even stupider.
The right wing is now suing NASA.
And yet, it’s still not weird enough for me.
1 |
Varek Raith Fri, Nov 27, 2009 5:59:38pm |
Z-Z-Zombie Nontroversy!
/Good thing I read the book on how to survive such a thing! :)
Joking aside, this is getting more idiotic everyday.
| 3 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:03:01pm |
The right wing is now suing NASA.
And yet, it's still not weird enough for me.
| 5 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:05:27pm |
| 6 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:05:31pm |
Such a litigious society - to many people with too much time on their hands.
| 7 |
Varek Raith Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:06:12pm |
re: #3 Charles
The right wing is now suing NASA.
And yet, it's still not weird enough for me.
You know what? Now that I think about it, this isn't weird enough for me either.
/sigh.
| 8 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:07:07pm |
re: #6 Bobibutu
Such a litigious society - to many people with too much time on their hands.
I'm sitting here ready to save the planet too...all these 15 min celebs ahead of me, slowing things down...I'm losing patience
| 9 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:07:11pm |
Seems straightforward to me: a request was made under FOIA, they should respond with the requested information or a detailed response why the information can't be provided. If they are ignoring the request, as the article implies, they are violating the law. It really doesn't matter what the subject matter requested is, a government agency is obligated to provide it.
| 10 |
Obdicut Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:07:36pm |
Charles, was that a referece to the awful, awful (but wonderful when done on MST3K)
The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?
Because if so, kudos.
And yeah, this article/lawsuit is fractally weird:
...was started as an effort to defend the debunked "Hockey Stick" that is so central to the CRU files.
What the hell?
| 11 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:07:41pm |
re: #6 Bobibutu
Such a litigious society - to many people with too much time on their hands.
Agreed on the litigious society part, but please note that this is part of a very coordinated effort to sabotage the Copenhagen climate summit. There's big money behind this, and multinational corporations that are very scared of that summit.
| 13 |
BARACK THE VOTE Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:08:25pm |
Decent diary at Open left that I think nails the situation, and also uses the fabulous term 'right wing puke funnel':
This is the (international) right wing puke funnel in action, trying to mainstream a climate science scandal. It also reeks of a classic orchestrated PR disinformation strategy. They've dubbed the CRU-hack as "climategate", and so using their fabricated scandal, create an imagined link to the NIWA data adjustment as "New Zealand's Climategate" despite there being no connection whatsoever between the two. The idea could be that by laying the groundwork with the CRU hack, now the denialists are trying to dribble out "see, another lying climate scientist" stories ahead of the Copenhagen summit. Each story on its own is meritless, but in a death of a thousand cuts, the cumulative effect is to damage the public perception of climate scientists as sincere people.
The principle behind this has a plausible basis in psychology, where papers like this have found that negative information has a persistent effect on one's perception of a subject, even after that negative information is proven incorrect.
Moreover, the older basis of using false attacks was the knowledge that the people who see the initial attack, don't always see the rebuttal that disproves it. So 10 people hear the false charge, and 8 of them hear the rebuttal, leaving 2 who still believe the charge to be true.
The Puke Funnel is trying to disrupt Copenhagen; the CRU Hack story continues
The deniers don't care if what they say is false, and don't care about issuing corrections--they'll move on to the next nontroversy, secure in the knowledge that there will be that 20 percent who will still believe the charge to be true, regardless of how ridiculous.
In many respects this seems to be the guiding principle behind the wingnut-sphere of late (and even some in the GOP) on many things.
| 14 |
Varek Raith Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:09:25pm |
re: #9 midow
Do you all time your synchronize watches or some such?
| 15 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:09:38pm |
I know a good lawyer who'd love to take the case.
| 16 |
Varek Raith Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:10:04pm |
re: #14 Varek Raith
Do you all time your synchronize watches or some such?
Wow, messed that one up.
Do you all synchronize your watches or some such?
| 17 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:10:13pm |
FACTSHEET: Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI
SNIP
CEI supports eventual elimination of the Superfund and has advocated the complete privatization of the Endangered Species Act, arguing that species protection would meet the level of "demand," based on how much citizens are willing to pay for habitat preservation (CLEAR fact sheet). CEI has a long anti-environmental pedigree. CEI is a member of the State Policy Network and the Cooler Heads Coalition. CEI was a sponsor of the first Wise Use conference in 1988 and has had membership in the Get Government Off Our Backs coalition, the wise use umbrella group. CEI is also a network member of The Heritage Foundation, Alliance for America, and the anti-Endangered Species Act group, Grassroots ESA Coalition. CEI was also a co-sponsor of the 1998 NY State Property Rights Conference.
With more than a $3 million annual budget, CEI is supported by both conservative foundations and corporate funding. Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil include the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM. One of CEI's prominent funders is conservative Richard Scaife who has provided money through the Carthage and Sara Scaife Foundations. CEI is also heavily supported by the various Koch brother foundations.
| 18 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:11:27pm |
re: #13 iceweasel
Decent diary at Open left that I think nails the situation, and also uses the fabulous term 'right wing puke funnel':
The Puke Funnel is trying to disrupt Copenhagen; the CRU Hack story continues
The deniers don't care if what they say is false, and don't care about issuing corrections--they'll move on to the next nontroversy, secure in the knowledge that there will be that 20 percent who will still believe the charge to be true, regardless of how ridiculous.
In many respects this seems to be the guiding principle behind the wingnut-sphere of late (and even some in the GOP) on many things.
yeehaaa!...buckle up for the ride...it's gonna get alot more bumpy before it smooths out...right vs left, left vs right...loudness and blogtime trumps reason...great entertainment eh?
| 19 |
BARACK THE VOTE Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:12:05pm |
re: #15 Killgore Trout
I know a good lawyer who'd love to take the case.
She's a lawyer AND a floor wax!
/wait, I meant dentist.
/or real estate agent.
Seriously, hasn't ORLY? been disbarred yet for suborning perjury?
| 21 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:14:58pm |
re: #11 Charles
Agreed on the litigious society part, but please note that this is part of a very coordinated effort to sabotage the Copenhagen climate summit. There's big money behind this, and multinational corporations that are very scared of that summit.
Agreed. If I were in the shipping industry I'd be licking my chops over this:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
One of Canada's top northern researchers says the permanent Arctic sea ice that is home to the world's polar bears and usually survives the summer has all but disappeared.
And that's only one tiny piece.
| 22 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:15:06pm |
re: #9 midow
Looking up NASA and FOIA requests, it seems they may be backlogged:
[Link: www.gwu.edu...]
Also- there are other legal considerations to take into task, such as the government doesn't have to turn over all documents.
| 23 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:16:15pm |
Competitive Enterprise Institute intends to sue blogger over moderation policy
Gavin Schmidt has done a wonderful job at RealClimate patiently explaining the context of the stolen emails. He's made it perfectly clear that the claims of scientific malpractice are without foundation. He must be doing a really good job, because the Competitive Enterprise Institute intends to sue him.
[CEI seeks documents] relating to the content, importance, or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or "blog" RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked "Hockey Stick" that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files and expressly offered as a tool to be used "in any way you think would be helpful" to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt's active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by "skeptics" attempting to comment on claims made on the website.
This, and the related political activism engaged in, are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.
Yes they're planning to sue Schmidt for the "inappropriate behavior" of moderating comments at RealClimate. Of course, the point of this vexatious suit isn't to win -- it's to harass and distract Schmidt because he is being effective.
| 24 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:17:56pm |
re: #15 Killgore Trout
You beat me to it...
LOL!
| 25 |
Wind Rider Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:18:52pm |
Charles, c'mon -
The Canadians noticed the NASA folks changed their data - and filed a FOIA request.
I recall the announcement and the "mea culpa" the GISS folks issued at the time.
Look, science is science. Math is math. 2 + 2 =4. What possible reason could there be against release of the raw data, and a description of the methodology? Replication or at least reproducibility of proof is a scientific standard, is it not?
And it follows that given the previous requests for the release of data fully justifies a request for the release of any material surrounding the decision to withhold such information.
If for no other reason than to dispel the appearance that there was something to hide.
But. considering that you appear to have dug in your heels on this one - a very admirable trait, I may add, when you are right, please take a step back, and check that you're not taking on some of the attributes that you have so notably denounced in the behaviors of others. You're beginning to have the tenor of a zealot on this issue.
| 26 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:19:10pm |
re #22 Sharmuta: if the suit is baseless, it will be thrown out early on, if not, well I guess we'll see what we'll see
| 27 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:19:40pm |
re: #23 Sharmuta
Competitive Enterprise Institute intends to sue blogger over moderation policy
Apparently the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" doesn't like competition in the arena of ideas, so they sue to shut their critics down (or, at least, to distract them and make them less effective).
/what a bunch of choads...sue me, you f**king pricks, I dare you
| 28 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:19:46pm |
this is gonna be the biggest story of the new year...well into 2010 and will affect the mid term elections...bet me...cap and trade is gonna get sucked into all this pretty soon...fucking goofy Americans, leading the march
| 29 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:20:19pm |
re: #11 Charles
Agreed on the litigious society part, but please note that this is part of a very coordinated effort to sabotage the Copenhagen climate summit. There's big money behind this, and multinational corporations that are very scared of that summit.
True that, but they are tilting at windmills as Copenhagen will clearly be a farce. There is also a pre-Copenfarcen effort to promote the AGW agenda, with the Polar Bears raining from the sky advert, the "Diagnosis" and a general amping up of the alarmism. Both sides are trying to push their agenda, this is expected.
There is also a stark difference between the hockey team at CRU and NASA. The latter has published its data and code. Once CRU does the same the controversy will be over. There is every justification to sue CRU, but I don't see the justification to sue NASA.
| 30 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:21:02pm |
re: #25 Wind Rider
But. considering that you appear to have dug in your heels on this one - a very admirable trait, I may add, when you are right, please take a step back, and check that you're not taking on some of the attributes that you have so notably denounced in the behaviors of others. You're beginning to have the tenor of a zealot on this issue.
OK, I took a step back and gave it some careful consideration.
And there's no doubt in my mind that this is a completely bogus lawsuit, filed by people who are in the pocket of the energy industry.
| 31 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:21:12pm |
re: #19 iceweasel
Not yet...
She did get hit with a pretty decent sized fine.
[Link: blogs.ocweekly.com...]
| 32 |
andres Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:21:30pm |
Just when I thought things couldn't get any weirder...
| 33 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:23:40pm |
re: #30 Charles
Bogus? Had they provided the information, there would be no lawsuit. If they're holding back they opened that door themselves.
| 34 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:24:46pm |
re: #30 Charles
OK, I took a step back and gave it some careful consideration.
And there's no doubt in my mind that this is a completely bogus lawsuit, filed by people who are in the pocket of the energy industry.
and people will have to believe any way the MSM spins it...bogus doesn't matter...nice hair counts for everything
| 36 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:27:04pm |
when the political value gets sorted out...BO will come dashing to the rescue to save us!
| 37 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:28:20pm |
re: #33 midow
Where have you been since February 2008? This story just caught your interest after all that time?
| 38 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:29:21pm |
re: #33 midow
Bogus? Had they provided the information, there would be no lawsuit. If they're holding back they opened that door themselves.
Many bogus suits are thrown out of courts every day of the week. This intent to sue filed against NASA is asking for "internal discussions" which seems petty and irrelevant as NASA has released the data itself and made correction where appropriate.
I expect this to be thrown out of court based upon its content.
| 39 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:29:43pm |
re: #29 Bagua
Reminds me of back in the 70s - I was still in Asia and sent my father (a sharp international attorney) a check for $1000 and a request that he draft and form a charitable corporation for me.
I still remember a line in the first paragraph of what he sent back. "The purpose of the corporation is to sue and be sued."
I never asked him to do any legal work for me again. He was right but it shook me to my core.
| 40 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:30:27pm |
NASA Goddard spokesman Mark Hess said the institute has received the FOIA requests. "We're processing them, and we will be releasing data as soon as its gone through all the proper reviews," he said.
[Link: www6.lexisnexis.com...]
| 41 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:31:58pm |
re: #40 Sharmuta
NASA Goddard spokesman Mark Hess said the institute has received the FOIA requests. "We're processing them, and we will be releasing data as soon as its gone through all the proper reviews," he said.
[Link: www6.lexisnexis.com...]
Notice how it doesn't say "data" but "flawed data."
| 42 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:33:22pm |
re: #38 Bagua
I expect this to be thrown out of court based upon its content.
Then there is nothing to be concerned about. CEI will waste some of their money and some tax dollars budgeted to GISS's legal department, and it will all be over.
Internal emails, notes, etc are fair game for an FOIA request.
| 43 |
Obdicut Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:34:57pm |
re: #42 midow
There is nothing to be concerned about, it's just a waste of tax dollars?
I'm not sure what blog you think you're posting on, but from my experience, that argument will go over like a lead balloon.
| 44 |
Lidane Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:36:58pm |
re: #28 albusteve
this is gonna be the biggest story of the new year...well into 2010 and will affect the mid term elections...
LOL no.
I can all but guarantee that the biggest issues that will affect the midterm elections are the health care debate, jobs, and the economy, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not far behind. This? Not so much.
| 45 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:37:08pm |
re: #43 Obdicut
That money comes out of the legal department budget; it's already obligated whether it goes to this case or some other. It's money spent in any case.
| 46 |
Wind Rider Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:37:34pm |
re: #30 Charles
OK, I took a step back and gave it some careful consideration.
And there's no doubt in my mind that this is a completely bogus lawsuit, filed by people who are in the pocket of the energy industry.
Because 5% of their research funding came from the energy sector? A 5% they readily disclosed?
Wow, was that a Black Friday special, or are Canadian researchers normally that inexpensive?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. As I've stated, my skepticism remains alive, and I think the science is far from 'settled'. You've apparently thrown in with the camp that believes that mankind is irrevocably destroying the planet and the environment, I happen to disagree, crediting mother nature with a lot more resiliency, and ascribing a lot less impact to the presence and/or activities of the species homo sapiens. Are people capable of making horrific localized messes? Absolutely. Have we reached the level of ability to adversely influence the global thermodynamic model, either intentionally or not? Very unlikely, given the size and scale of the other factors involved; therefore to throw blind faith on the side of those making improbably wild assertions based on admittedly flawed and apparently gamed inadequate computer modeling seems to be the epitome of irrationality.
Nothing short of an act of faith.
| 47 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:37:45pm |
re: #45 midow
That money comes out of the legal department budget; it's already obligated whether it goes to this case or some other. It's money spent in any case.
You seem to be amazingly knowledgeable about the details of this case.
| 48 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:39:07pm |
Not this case; I am weeks away from retiring from a federal agency and I know how federal budgeting is done, and how the money gets obligated.
| 49 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:39:40pm |
I sure wish more conservative politicians spoke out about this and put this nonsense to bed. Then perhaps we can do something substantive about GW. Because clunkers and cap and trade really will not accomplish much at all.
We need an energy revolution in America (heck, the world).
| 50 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:39:42pm |
This is interesting. Fred L. Singer, Jr. is founder and president of CEI. He's perhaps against AGW but he has other plans:
Republicans should work to reform policies that have encouraged people to locate in earthquake zones in California, flood plains along the Gulf, and fire-prone areas throughout the West. They should join with environmentalists and others to encourage reforms that would allow private insurers to price risks, thus encouraging development outside of hazardous areas.
CEI's president wants to depopulate what he thinks are hazard prone areas by way of higher insurance costs.
| 51 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:40:10pm |
Competitive Enterprise Institute:
Other documents in the LTDL show that CEI has received funding directly from various tobacco companies.[6],[7],[8] For example, the listing on the Philip Morris Glossary of Names: C gives the note "Received public policy grant from Philip Morris (1995); Pro-market public interest group dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government."
ExxonMobil Corporation was a major donor to CEI, with over $2 million in contributions between 1998 and 2005. [9] In 2002 the company gave $405,000;[10] in 2004 it gave CEI $180,000 that was earmarked for "global climate change and global climate change outreach." [9] In 2006, the company announced that it had ended its funding for the group.[11]
| 52 |
Digital Display Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:41:05pm |
re: #31 Floral Giraffe
Not yet...
She did get hit with a pretty decent sized fine.[Link: blogs.ocweekly.com...]
Hi beautiful.. I went to the Indy zoo the other day and saw 2 giraffes get in a fight.. They seriously knock heads together...And all this time I thought giraffes were so nice...Not...
| 53 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:41:51pm |
More concerning NASA and FOIA requests:
He said NASA is "better than some agencies and worse than others in terms of FOIA compliance." But he added that NASA is put in a tough place, because it has a lot of private companies, including foreign companies, attempting to gather technological and contract-related information for competition reasons.
It's an old story, but I think the part I quoted above is important to keep in mind. If NASA were really dragging it's heels for no good reason for 2 years trying to avoid releasing these emails, I would have thought I'd have heard about it before now. I suspect that there are legitimate reasons for this 2 year delay that we're not hearing from the deniers, and I can't find a NASA statement on it either except that they've received the requests are are working on it. But something here stinks, ad I'm looking at the denialists since they have a track record of dishonesty.
| 55 |
andres Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:42:34pm |
re: #33 midow
This isn't taken place in CSI Miami, where getting that last missing clue will solve the mystery, and everyone will be happy. These people will continue to ignore whatever evidence against them is shown and will promote anything resembling evidence in their favor no matter how discredited the source.
| 57 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:43:08pm |
re: #51 Charles
Here's their leader Fred L. Singer Jr:
Our theme tonight is Revolution. Revolution is a double-edged metaphor. It can be bloody or peaceful, tyrannical or liberating, physical or intellectual.
Our revolution is against the Politically Correct notions pushed by chattering-class intellectuals. A revolt against conventional wisdom, ossified hierarchies, and expanding bureaucracies.
SNIP
Let me thank Jonah Goldberg for acting as our Master of Ceremonies tonight. Jonah's new book, Liberal Fascism, is truly excellent; I’m enjoying it. Still, I couldn’t help editorial comment: "Liberal Fascism is a fine title, but wouldn't Liberal Statism have been even better?"
“Too late”, Jonah responded, but I wonder if that was the real reason. My research shows that, while Microsoft Word’s spellcheck recognizes fascism as a word, it doesn’t recognize statism! Surprised me – I thought that the software industry above all others would have recognized that threat!
SNIP
| 58 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:43:25pm |
re: #49 Racer X
I sure wish more conservative politicians spoke out about this and put this nonsense to bed. Then perhaps we can do something substantive about GW. Because clunkers and cap and trade really will not accomplish much at all.
We need an energy revolution in America (heck, the world).
it's not the destination that counts...it's the journey...watching this whole thing unfold gives me the future creeps...I think it's close to hopeless that any constructive progress can come from this...but it's what the bloggers and the media wants
| 59 |
Ojoe Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:44:13pm |
Boy. Chris Horner is planning to sue the Goddard Institute also.
Robert Goddard was a rocket pioneer & built the first ever liquid fueled rocket.
Here's his photo with the first liquid fueled rocket:
Extra cool photo.
Good night all.
| 60 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:44:46pm |
re: #6 Bobibutu
Such a litigious society - to many people with too much time on their hands.
Sitting on this barstool talking like a damn fool
Got the twelve o'clock news blues
And I've given up hope on the afternoon soaps
And a bottle of cold brew
Is it any wonder I'm not crazy? Is it any wonder I'm sane at all
Well I'm so tired of losing- I got nothing to do and all day to do it
I go out cruisin' but I've no place to go and all night to get there
Is it any wonder I'm not a criminal?
Is it any wonder I'm not in jail?
Is it any wonder I've got
Too much time on my hands, it's ticking away with my sanity
I've got too much time on my hands, it's hard to believe such a calamity
I've got too much time on my hands and it's ticking away from me
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my hands
Too much time on my hands
| 61 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:44:52pm |
re: #54 Racer X
Humans = bad.
mmm'kay.
Yeah. How to depopulate Los Angeles and the Bay Area by increasing the cost of living -- By Fred L. Singer, Jr.
He's a CATO Institute guy. Guest editor at Liberty magazine.
| 62 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:45:17pm |
The CEI even had the nerve to put me on their mailing list today (without asking permission), which is how I learned about this ridiculous frivolous lawsuit.
The denial industry is in full court press mode.
| 63 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:46:35pm |
re: #55 andres
I have no issues with what if anything they get or don't get. I'm pretty sure NASA operates with enough transparency that no smoking guns are lying around to be discovered.
And I suppose CEI could be just preemptively grandstanding with their intent to file to get press coverage.
But if they are actually stonewalling a legitimate FOIA request, they could be in for a lot of court time
| 64 |
exelwood Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:48:26pm |
Is there anything more magnificent than the left in high dudgeon?
| 65 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:48:51pm |
| 66 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:48:52pm |
re: #63 midow
I have no issues with what if anything they get or don't get. I'm pretty sure NASA operates with enough transparency that no smoking guns are lying around to be discovered.
And I suppose CEI could be just preemptively grandstanding with their intent to file to get press coverage.
But if they are actually stonewalling a legitimate FOIA request, they could be in for a lot of court time
and who benefits from that?...this whole issue has been brewing for awhile...why let the AGW crowd make all the money?
| 69 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:50:25pm |
Christopher C. Horner
Counsel, Cooler Heads Coalition and Senior Fellow
Origins:
Consumer Alert was founded in 1977. It described itself as "a national, non-profit organization for people concerned about excessive growth of government regulation at the national and state levels. We are dedicated to informing the public about the consumer benefits of competitive enterprise and promoting the utilization of sound economic, scientific, and risk data in public policy decisions."
The National Consumer Coalition was formed by Consumer Alert on February 4, 1997; it conducted research and educational activities on a variety of issues, including housing, transportation, food, health and safety, the environment, utilities, tax policy, financial issues, and telecommunications. A major issue of the National Consumer Coalition in the late 1990s was opposition to a federal mandate that airbags be installed in automobiles sold in the United States. The NCC argued that manufacturers should be allowed to install switches in automobiles so consumers can turn the airbags off. After federal permission for such switches was given, the NCC sought to persuade automakers to install the switches.
SNIP
So not unlike Heartland and smoking this group though air bags were a bad idea.
I wonder how Chris Horner feels about air bags.
| 70 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:50:53pm |
re: #59 Ojoe
Boy. Chris Horner is planning to sue the Goddard Institute also.
Robert Goddard was a rocket pioneer & built the first ever liquid fueled rocket.
Here's his photo with the first liquid fueled rocket:
Extra cool photo.
Good night all.
Heh - inspired by Goddard I began building my own rockets in the late 50s.
A model is still produced of my first effort which cost $20 and was frikkin' awesome.
[Link: www.apogeerockets.com...]
| 71 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:52:05pm |
re: #30 Charles
And there's no doubt in my mind that this is a completely bogus lawsuit, filed by people who are in the pocket of the energy industry.
You may be interested in Eli's recent post on this:
Merchants of Doubt is a forthcoming (May 25, 2010, mark your calendars little girls and guys) book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway about:
how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda.
The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues affecting quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.
Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly—some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is “not settled” denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one tobacco executive. These “experts” supplied it.
Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, historians of science, roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how ideology and corporate interests, aided by a too-compliant media, have skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.
Eli prefers his way of putting it, there is a real thin bench over there at denial central, but it can't be said often enough that their ability to inject doubt and dirt into the public discourse has killed an awful lot of people (tobacco), is killing more today (HIV denial, refusal to provide condom, etc.) and threatens to wipe out a lot more (climate change denial).
As far as Eli knows the denialists have never been on the side of an issue that was not harmful to health, wealth and happiness alone or in the various possible permutations. Climate change is the grand challenge, all three in one go. Several of that loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers have made a rather good career of this (more examples available). [...]
As Eli points out, it is not just corporate interests working alone, but a small group of consistently contrarian scientists (mostly physicists, which is why he mentions the APS) who work with the corporate interests to accomplish the goals. This group recently petitioned the APS to get the APS to change its statement on AGW. They didn't really succeed, though they did get a little bit of what they wanted indirectly.
Some of the contrarians' motivations are obviously religiously based (Tipler, Spencer), while others are more political/ideological (Jastrow, Happer), and few are probably in it only for the money (Singer.)
The oil/coal axis (Inhofe, Vittner, and to a lesser extent senators from Appalachia) long figured out how to make use of the contrarians to best effect.
Anyway, be on the lookout for Oreskes' new book.
| 72 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:52:19pm |
re: #55 andres
This isn't taken place in CSI Miami, where getting that last missing clue will solve the mystery, and everyone will be happy. These people will continue to ignore whatever evidence against them is shown and will promote anything resembling evidence in their favor no matter how discredited the source.
Quick! We need The Sunglasses of Justice!
| 73 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:53:03pm |
re: #70 Bobibutu
Heh - inspired by Goddard I began building my own rockets in the late 50s.
A model is still produced of my first effort which cost $20 and was frikkin' awesome.
[Link: www.apogeerockets.com...]
that's a WMD nowdays!...I built a few rockets in my day
| 74 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:53:30pm |
re: #62 Charles
The CEI even had the nerve to put me on their mailing list today (without asking permission), which is how I learned about this ridiculous frivolous lawsuit.
The denial industry is in full court press mode.
You don't have to have a Lizard Operative on the case - the Morons are doing all your espionage for you!
| 75 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:55:53pm |
re: #63 midow
Are you associated with the CEI?
| 76 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:56:12pm |
If the left would treat AGW seriously then I think more people would take it seriously.
Carbon offset credits? Clunkers? Cap and Trade?
Really? Those are your solutions?
| 77 |
Wind Rider Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:56:24pm |
Talk about a Loose Change kinda climate change. . .
| 78 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:57:22pm |
re: #75 Charles
Are you associated with the CEI?
Nope. Not in any capacity. Only heard of it recently.
| 79 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:58:23pm |
re: #76 Racer X
If the left would treat AGW seriously then I think more people would take it seriously.
Carbon offset credits? Clunkers? Cap and Trade?
Really? Those are your solutions?
There may come a time when you'll look back on those measures and wish you hadn't been so negative toward them.
| 80 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 6:59:33pm |
re: #76 Racer X
If the left would treat AGW seriously then I think more people would take it seriously.
Carbon offset credits? Clunkers? Cap and Trade?
Really? Those are your solutions?
Maybe if some AGW champions like al gore practiced what they preach?
| 81 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:00:20pm |
re: #76 Racer X
If the left would treat AGW seriously then I think more people would take it seriously.
Carbon offset credits? Clunkers? Cap and Trade?
Really? Those are your solutions?
Have to price carbon somehow. And Cash for Clunkers was more for the auto industry. It wasn't a climate program. It just had a fuel efficiency standard with it.
| 82 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:00:21pm |
re: #76 Racer X
If the left would treat AGW seriously then I think more people would take it seriously.
Carbon offset credits? Clunkers? Cap and Trade?
Really? Those are your solutions?
you hooo! over here!
you wonder why the AGW people have a cred problem...the science is secondary...the PR is where they lost this fight, and now they scratch their heads wondering what went wrong...duh!
| 83 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:00:42pm |
re: #79 Charles
There may come a time when you'll look back on those measures and wish you hadn't been so negative toward them.
Until we have enough nuclear power for decent baseload capacity, cap and trade is a suicide pact. You can't maintain a technical civilization by restricting access to energy.
| 84 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:00:47pm |
re: #78 midow
Nope. Not in any capacity. Only heard of it recently.
So .. you were just kind of guessing when you wrote this?
re: #45 midow
That money comes out of the legal department budget; it's already obligated whether it goes to this case or some other. It's money spent in any case.
Because that sure seems to indicate that you know something about the organization.
| 85 |
Wind Rider Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:02:10pm |
And just for the record, not a CEI associate either. Well, they rejected my last re-imbursement request, but then just about everyone seems to do that.
Here's an idea - Charles, enhance your social interaction. You're in the SoCal area, how about making a lunch date with Den Beste (if you two are on speaking terms).
I doubt he's in anyone's pocket (or disregard that if it has a 'conspiratorial vibe). He's also an engineer with a good grasp of thermodynamics. I have no idea what his position is, but, speaking of taking things on faith, he's someone I've always considered rational and logical enough to call things like he sees them.
Go do lunch. Have a chat. Talk science. Talk numbers. Leave the politics away from the table. Engage your mind, instead of your heart.
| 86 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:02:39pm |
re: #83 midow
Until we have enough nuclear power for decent baseload capacity, cap and trade is a suicide pact. You can't maintain a technical civilization by restricting access to energy.
Status quo is a suicide pact. And climate change deniers are handing out free guns.
| 87 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:02:52pm |
re: #79 Charles
There may come a time when you'll look back on those measures and wish you hadn't been so negative toward them.
my negativity means nothing...my tax money put people ahead of me in new cars...that's just fundamentally wrong where I come from
| 88 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:02:58pm |
re: #84 Charles
Because that sure seems to indicate that you know something about the organization.
I work for an executive agency of the federal government - the budget process and department budgeting process is all but identical from one to another.
The agency is not NASA, by the way.
| 89 |
allegro Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:03:46pm |
re: #80 Sharmuta
[Link: www.mydd.com...]
What's new is that Gore has gotten LEED gold certification from the Green Building Council - the 10,000-square-foot home is one of only 14 in the U.S. to achieve this rating, and the only home in Tennessee that's gotten any certification at all, according to the Associated Press. (There is also a platinum standard) Solar panels, solar roof fans, a rainwater collection system, and geothermal heating were all installed at the house. All incandescent lights - including those on the Christmas tree! - were replaced with either compact fluorescents or light-emitting diodes.
| 90 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:04:01pm |
Fleeing Bulls, Blundering Butchers: An Odd Eid In Turkey. Bulls Put Half Dozen Butchers In Hospital.
I'm all for slaughtering animals but the carnival blood orgy is bad for the animals and the humans.
| 91 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:04:04pm |
re: #85 Wind Rider
Pretty presumptuous of you, don't you think?
| 92 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:04:12pm |
re: #75 Charles
Are you associated with the CEI?
Nothing would surprise me.
That's Lee Doren or "How The World Works" that was an LGF member. He's working for CEI.
He was even on Glenn Beck.
Astroturfers.
| 93 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:04:58pm |
re: #79 Charles
There may come a time when you'll look back on those measures and wish you hadn't been so negative toward them.
Perhaps, but if the oceans are truly going to rise 6 feet in the next 100 years I doubt that a few thousand clunker exchanges and cap and trade will make any difference at all. We need something more meaningful.
Don't you think?
| 94 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:05:29pm |
re: #89 allegro
Good for him, and thanks for the fact check.
| 96 |
BARACK THE VOTE Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:05:41pm |
re: #76 Racer X
If the left would treat AGW seriously then I think more people would take it seriously.
Carbon offset credits? Clunkers? Cap and Trade?
Really? Those are your solutions?
Not everything is the fault of 'the left'.
In this case, the major stumbling block has to do with big corporations and industries that are heavily invested in being anti-AGW-- and being in thrall to special interests and to corporations isn't exclusive to the right or the left.
Add to that the demonstrated anti-science bias already prevalent on the right, and there's a fertile ground for planting anti-AGW seeds already among the electorate.
Finally, you can't possibly claim that it's the left that fails to take AGW seriously, when it is the right that offers no solutions of its own on this--only criticisms of everything proposed, when not denying AGW outright.
| 97 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:05:49pm |
re: #86 recusancy
Status quo is a suicide pact. And climate change deniers are handing out free guns.
Has anyone else seen the news report that Britain is importing tropical wood to burn in their "green" biomass electrical plants? It was in the Times (UK) a week or so ago.
Cutting down rainforest for electricity. Killing the lungs of the planet for "green" power. That's where we're headed.
| 98 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:06:25pm |
re: #86 recusancy
Status quo is a suicide pact. And climate change deniers are handing out free guns.
don't know...there are but a few CC deniers here at LGF...by and large we want some constructive measures to deal with it, not argue for years over what's causing it or who's model gets the most attention
| 99 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:06:26pm |
re: #90 Killgore Trout
KT? Do I want to watch this?
| 100 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:06:29pm |
re: #83 midow
Until we have enough nuclear power for decent baseload capacity, cap and trade is a suicide pact. You can't maintain a technical civilization by restricting access to energy.
I agree with this particular statement.
| 101 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:06:32pm |
re: #89 allegro
What's new is that Gore has gotten LEED gold certification from the Green Building Council - the 10,000-square-foot home is one of only 14 in the U.S. to achieve this rating...All incandescent lights - including those on the Christmas tree! - were replaced with either compact fluorescents or light-emitting diodes.
Are the tires on the Gulfstream V inflated to the proper pressure? That's important, you know!
Multiple //
| 102 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:07:17pm |
re: #96 iceweasel
Not everything is the fault of 'the left'.
In this case, the major stumbling block has to do with big corporations and industries that are heavily invested in being anti-AGW-- and being in thrall to special interests and to corporations isn't exclusive to the right or the left.
Add to that the demonstrated anti-science bias already prevalent on the right, and there's a fertile ground for planting anti-AGW seeds already among the electorate.
Finally, you can't possibly claim that it's the left that fails to take AGW seriously, when it is the right that offers no solutions of its own on this--only criticisms of everything proposed, when not denying AGW outright.
Yeah, the left.
Ford adapted to the design environment.
GM did not or did a very poor job.
The results were obvious.
| 103 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:07:36pm |
Looks like it's going to be one of those nights.
| 104 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:07:45pm |
re: #85 Wind Rider
[...]
Go do lunch. Have a chat. Talk science. Talk numbers. Leave the politics away from the table. Engage your mind, instead of your heart.
That is insulting and baseless. Charles argues his points from reason, not emotion. That you suggest otherwise indicates you have little familiarity with his work.
| 105 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:08:40pm |
re: #97 midow
Has anyone else seen the news report that Britain is importing tropical wood to burn in their "green" biomass electrical plants? It was in the Times (UK) a week or so ago.
Cutting down rainforest for electricity. Killing the lungs of the planet for "green" power. That's where we're headed.
Got a source for that? That's not 'where we're headed'.
| 106 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:08:54pm |
re: #99 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
KT? Do I want to watch this?
Probably not. It's not super graphic but it's a little disturbing.
| 107 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:09:01pm |
re: #85 Wind Rider
Engage your mind, instead of your heart.
Occasionally, I have to tell myself to just let it go and not answer an insulting comment.
This is one of those times.
| 108 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:09:03pm |
re: #103 Charles
Looks like it's going to be one of those nights.
Stinky is warming up in the batting cage, I can feel it.
| 110 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:09:58pm |
re: #109 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
BTW, are you a vegetarian for ethical reasons or do you just like the diet?
| 111 |
albusteve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:10:01pm |
| 112 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:10:16pm |
re: #90 Killgore Trout
Fleeing Bulls, Blundering Butchers: An Odd Eid In Turkey. Bulls Put Half Dozen Butchers In Hospital.
Good for the bulls.
| 113 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:10:43pm |
re: #89 allegro
Good for Al. His credibility just rose a notch.
| 114 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:11:36pm |
re: #110 Killgore Trout
Not even ethical. I just don't wanna kill nuthin'. But, I don't think that killing is unethical, if that makes any sense.
| 115 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:11:37pm |
re: #112 Charles
Good for the bulls.
Whenever there's a bull fight I always root for the bull. This is no different.
| 116 |
Wind Rider Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:12:05pm |
No sir, that was not an insult - that was a request.
It's hard to see someone you've come to regard as a champion exhibit some of the same behaviors that you once cheered him to deride.
| 117 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:12:16pm |
re: #105 recusancy
Got a source for that? That's not 'where we're headed'.
That's where they're headed. Biomass power generation could consume all the arable land left in the country. But to answer your question, I am searching for a link now. I will post it when I find it; it's only a week old or so
| 118 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:12:57pm |
re: #106 Killgore Trout
The ROP seems to have an amazing thirst for blood.
It feels wrong to say that, but jeeez!
| 119 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:12:59pm |
re: #116 Wind Rider
No sir, that was not an insult - that was a request.
It's hard to see someone you've come to regard as a champion exhibit some of the same behaviors that you once cheered him to deride.
Maybe it means you should take a second look at what it is your champion is pointing out to you?
| 120 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:14:05pm |
re: #114 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Not even ethical. I just don't wanna kill nuthin'. But, I don't think that killing animals for food is unethical, if that makes any sense.
Lest I seem a little murderous...
| 122 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:14:32pm |
re: #96 iceweasel
I never placed blame on the inaction in regards to AGW. Yes, many on the right are hindering the effort. But so far the proposed actions will have limited (if any) effect on rising temps.
Nuclear power would be a big step in the right correct direction.
| 123 |
Irenicum Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:14:40pm |
re: #118 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
It's no different than any of the major world religions. They all have traditionally required blood sacrifices.
| 124 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:14:50pm |
re: #85 Wind Rider
You're in the SoCal area, how about making a lunch date with Den Beste (if you two are on speaking terms).
Do you mean the Japanophile Den Beste, who gets trotted out on occasion at the usual sites (such as PJM) as some sort of expert in energy?
| 125 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:15:04pm |
re: #115 recusancy
Whenever there's a bull fight I always root for the bull. This is no different.
My Cardiologist was talking about what fun he had on vacation - he went to Pamplona and ran with the bulls!
Doc! Cut that shit out, you got too many people back home relying on you, me included!
| 126 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:15:04pm |
re: #117 midow
That's where they're headed. Biomass power generation could consume all the arable land left in the country. But to answer your question, I am searching for a link now. I will post it when I find it; it's only a week old or so
Bio-anything power generation will not be a long term answer. Whether it's a fossil fuel or a bio-fuel it will be using precious resources and exhaling carbon into the air as a byproduct. They may call it green but it's about as green as BP.
| 127 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:15:17pm |
re: #116 Wind Rider
No sir, that was not an insult - that was a request.
It's hard to see someone you've come to regard as a champion exhibit some of the same behaviors that you once cheered him to deride.
In other words, I was a champion as long as I was saying what you wanted to hear. As soon as I challenged your prejudices, suddenly I was nuts and needed an intervention.
Gotcha.
| 128 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:15:28pm |
re: #116 Wind Rider
No sir, that was not an insult - that was a request.
It's hard to see someone you've come to regard as a champion exhibit some of the same behaviors that you once cheered him to deride.
You claim it's not an insult and then you follow it up with another one?
Get off your high-horse and try a bit more mind and a lot less emotion yourself.
| 130 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:15:52pm |
Yep. Looks like the word has gone out.
| 132 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:16:06pm |
re: #114 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Not even ethical. I just don't wanna kill nuthin'. But, I don't think that killing is unethical, if that makes any sense.
Makes sense.
| 133 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:16:59pm |
re: #105 recusancy
Got a source for that? That's not 'where we're headed'.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6918024.ece
| 134 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:17:32pm |
re: #131 Gus 802
Feeling flouncey are we?
"Gus, he's lost that lovin' feeling."
"I hate it when that happens!"
| 135 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:18:06pm |
| 136 |
BARACK THE VOTE Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:18:38pm |
Have to give a shout out to the genesis of the thread title: The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixedup Zombies (heh):
For those who have not seen this masterpiece, MSTK's version is on youtube, and here's the trailer:
| 137 |
Wind Rider Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:19:18pm |
re: #119 Sharmuta
I have looked. And re-looked. I see bad science, being used by people with agendas other than those stated. I see equivocation, I see petty games of 'hide the ball'. I see alternate theories, and the research into them discarded out of hand, regardless of merit. I see entrenched bureaucrats guarding their petty rice bowls. I see politicians alerted to the possibility of further control of money and resources either rubbing their hands with glee, or pounding the table to intimidate.
What I do NOT see is the math. The math just does not fit. It flat out doesn't work.
| 138 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:19:55pm |
re: #105 recusancy
Got a source for that? That's not 'where we're headed'.
Actually it is one of the missteps, just like the devastation of the Amazon forest to farm for ethanol. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.
| 140 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:20:22pm |
re: #122 Racer X
I never placed blame on the inaction in regards to AGW. Yes, many on the right are hindering the effort. But so far the proposed actions will have limited (if any) effect on rising temps.
Nuclear power would be a big step in the
rightcorrect direction.
You propose to centrally plan and install nuclear power throughout the nation. I propose a market for carbon so that it can have a price and then private enterprise can find the solution. That market may be in a form of some kind of cap and trade but it will put a price on carbon so that companies are incentivized to innovate. Right now the incentive is to drill baby drill.
| 141 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:20:47pm |
re: #137 Wind Rider
What I do NOT see is the math. The math just does not fit. It flat out doesn't work.
Oh? Care to educate us?
| 142 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:20:56pm |
| 143 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:21:07pm |
re: #137 Wind Rider
That could almost complete read as a creationist rant.
| 145 |
Cheechako Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:21:39pm |
re: #68 Sharmuta
This is a boilerplate regulation. All federal agencies have very similar regulations. I've been on the receiving end of several FOIA requests and I can guarantee they are a pain in the butt to process. They can take a very long time depending on the scope of the request. If it's just one field office not so long but if the request covers the whole agency it could take several years.
One important piece of information, Congress passed the FOIA Act but has never appropriated any funds to implement the Act. All the costs for searching the files and computers have to be taken out of the agencies regular budget. These hugh requests will require an expensive, and time consuming search.
| 146 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:22:05pm |
re: #126 recusancy
Bio-anything power generation will not be a long term answer. Whether it's a fossil fuel or a bio-fuel it will be using precious resources and exhaling carbon into the air as a byproduct. They may call it green but it's about as green as BP.
Britain recently passed a law requiring 80% (iirc) reduction of carbon emission by 2020? (Not positive about the date) So they are committed to shifting their baseload away from coal and onto wind (!) and bio. They're doomed, of course, but sometimes it's better to be an example of what _not_ to do.
| 147 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:22:17pm |
re: #141 freetoken
Oh? Care to educate us?
He's too disappointed at the moment to be troubled with facts and such.
| 148 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:22:36pm |
re: #137 Wind Rider
What I do NOT see is the math. The math just does not fit. It flat out doesn't work.
Oh really?
Which part of "the math" doesn't work, exactly? Please be specific and list the equations that don't work. You seem so sure about this, it shouldn't be difficult.
| 149 |
Wind Rider Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:22:57pm |
Ok, I'm outta here - looks like you guys are erecting a post in the middle of the square, and piling up wood around the base. Pass on to Sr. Torquemada that I regret I won't be participating any further in the bar-b-q
And no, Charles - it wasn't cause you were 'saying what I wanted to hear'.
It was because you used to be really good at what it is you do.
Which was to be rational about things. This. . .this is like LGF from an alternate dimension or something.
| 150 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:23:08pm |
re: #146 midow
Britain recently passed a law requiring 80% (iirc) reduction of carbon emission by 2020? (Not positive about the date) So they are committed to shifting their baseload away from coal and onto wind (!) and bio. They're doomed, of course, but sometimes it's better to be an example of what _not_ to do.
Of course... //
| 151 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:23:29pm |
re: #140 recusancy
You propose to centrally plan and install nuclear power throughout the nation. I propose a market for carbon so that it can have a price and then private enterprise can find the solution. That market may be in a form of some kind of cap and trade but it will put a price on carbon so that companies are incentivized to innovate. Right now the incentive is to drill baby drill.
I think there is a huge demand for "clean" energy. There is one politician in particular who is vehemently against nuclear. And right now he has clout. But not for long.
| 152 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:23:49pm |
re: #149 Wind Rider
C'mon, I need educatin' about how the math "doesn't work".
| 153 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:23:58pm |
| 155 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:24:17pm |
re: #149 Wind Rider
Hey, come on! I'm waiting to find out which part of "the math" doesn't work. Don't leave before you enlighten me.
| 156 |
Wind Rider Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:24:22pm |
re: #141 freetoken
And Charles - it's a question of scale. That's all.
I'll just leave with a reference to the futility of teaching a pig to sing, which I'm sure applies in the other direction as well. Good evening, gentlemen.
| 158 |
Neutral President Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:25:03pm |
re: #149 Wind Rider
And you are about to read a book Stinky's foot wrote. It's called On the Road to In Your Ass.
| 159 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:25:11pm |
re: #151 Racer X
I think there is a huge demand for "clean" energy. There is one politician in particular who is vehemently against nuclear. And right now he has clout. But not for long.
And I suppose it doesn't need pointing out that France (France!) gets most of its power from nuclear
| 160 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:25:14pm |
re: #156 Wind Rider
And Charles - it's a question of scale. That's all.
I'll just leave with a reference to the futility of teaching a pig to sing, which I'm sure applies in the other direction as well. Good evening, gentlemen.
Come on! Just one equation, that's all I'm asking for!
| 161 |
allegro Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:25:20pm |
re: #156 Wind Rider
Well, that blows. I was so looking forward to the math lesson.
| 162 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:25:40pm |
re: #156 Wind Rider
You're not one of those guys who used to call up Art Bell with some marvelous time-machine invention... only to disappear into the mist when it came time to prove it, are you?
| 163 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:25:51pm |
re: #145 Cheechako
Yes- I found some other links that show NASA can take a long time to process their requests. However, I also found a link that said NASA was one of the better agencies at getting their released FOIA requests onto their website:
The National Security Archive cited NASA and the US Department of Education as examples of excellent FOIA websites and the Air Force, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Department of Veterans Affairs [official websites] as delinquent websites.
So they are a mixed bag. I'm still not finding any information on why CEI is claiming a two year lag except that the courts must be allowing it for some reason, and we're not getting the full story from the deniers.
| 165 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:26:01pm |
| 168 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:26:48pm |
I hate showing up to the party late. Bummer.
| 169 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:26:55pm |
re: #151 Racer X
I think there is a huge demand for "clean" energy. There is one politician in particular who is vehemently against nuclear. And right now he has clout. But not for long.
Hu? Who's he? Obama? There's minimal demand for clean energy. There's demand for cheap energy. And right now that's fossil fuels. If carbon was priced in then there would be incentive beyond "green smugness" (my words) to find a more reliable cheaper alternative that didn't exhale carbon. And yes nuclear will probably be part of those cheaper alternatives.
| 170 |
Irenicum Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:27:06pm |
The pre-flounce and run. It's getting to be as regular as rain. If nothing else, they're proving one part of evolution true. Adapt and survive. Though I think Charles may adapt faster!
| 171 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:27:32pm |
re: #163 Sharmuta
I'm still not finding any information on why CEI is claiming a two year lag except that the courts must be allowing it for some reason, and we're not getting the full story from the deniers.
Wouldn't surprise me if the NASA teams is staring at the paperwork, trying to figure out exactly what in the hell these guys want.
| 172 |
bloodnok Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:28:29pm |
| 173 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:28:37pm |
I'm bummed. Where's the math? I was so looking forward to it.
| 174 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:28:48pm |
| 176 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:29:14pm |
re: #169 recusancy
Hu? Who's he? Obama? There's minimal demand for clean energy. There's demand for cheap energy. And right now that's fossil fuels. If carbon was priced in then there would be incentive beyond "green smugness" (my words) to find a more reliable cheaper alternative that didn't exhale carbon. And yes nuclear will probably be part of those cheaper alternatives.
Harry Reid.
And wind farms do not produce cheap energy, but look at the demand for the energy produced by them.
| 177 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:30:05pm |
What horseshit.
At least with a cellphone you can claim you are going into a tunnel or something.
| 178 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:30:13pm |
| 180 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:30:19pm |
What is the meaning of everything?
42.
There's your math.
| 181 |
Irenicum Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:30:23pm |
OT/
My sister reminded me earlier tonight of something from this summer. We saw a sign at a church that said "Road Rage: What Would Jesus Do?" And my instantaneous reaction was "Get yer Ass of the road!"
| 182 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:30:29pm |
re: #173 Charles
I'm bummed. Where's the math? I was so looking forward to it.
Uh, how many 3 cent stamps in a dozen?
| 183 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:30:50pm |
re: #169 recusancy
Hu? Who's he? Obama? There's minimal demand for clean energy. There's demand for cheap energy. And right now that's fossil fuels. If carbon was priced in then there would be incentive beyond "green smugness" (my words) to find a more reliable cheaper alternative that didn't exhale carbon. And yes nuclear will probably be part of those cheaper alternatives.
As far a I know only nuclear and hydro will scale to the levels needed, and hydro is location dependent; there aren't that many good spots left to do hydro.
Nuclear can be put down anywhere a cooling lake can be found or made, so it is the only one that offers the necessary power levels we need. Wind and solar, tidal, etc. are pipe dreams.
And you are right on the money: cheap first, clean later, maybe.
| 185 |
Summer Seale Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:30:55pm |
You know, if they actually put half of their energy into doing something constructive like, I don't know...trying to discover more efficient fuel or something, we'd already be halfway there without the need to waste time on all their made-up bullshit "arguments"...
| 186 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:31:42pm |
Kamikaze at angels 20.
He vewy angwy with teh comment and iz downringing teh commints.
//
| 187 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:31:58pm |
re: #173 Charles
I'm bummed. Where's the math? I was so looking forward to it.
A train leaves Chicago heading west, going 65 miles per hour. At the same moment, a train leaves Seattle heading East at 80 miles per hour. These two trains collide somewhere near Butte , Montana.
Knowing the direction and speed of both trains, aren't you glad you took the bus?
| 188 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:32:11pm |
re: #173 Charles
Yeah... I haven't had a math lesson since... well, I can't remember when.
I feel math-deprived.
∏(idiots) = ∯ (internet) d(cable-modems) dt
| 189 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:32:38pm |
re: #177 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
What horseshit.
At least with a cellphone you can claim you are going into a tunnel or something.
LOL!
Sorr) - I s@em to h@v7 a bad c˚µµection or some√ng.
Gotta log off. Bye!
| 190 |
bloodnok Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:32:41pm |
re: #186 Gus 802
Kamikaze at angels 20.
He vewy angwy with teh comment and iz downringing teh commints.
//
Downdings make everything right. And shows us all. Yes.
| 193 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:33:29pm |
re: #190 bloodnok
Downdings make everything right. And shows us all. Yes.
Death by a thousand downdings!
//
| 194 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:33:30pm |
re: #188 freetoken
I have four years of Algebra I.
| 195 |
allegro Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:33:45pm |
re: #192 freetoken
He did pretty well with those fishes and loaves.
| 196 |
Irenicum Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:34:04pm |
re: #181 Irenicum
Aw crap, that was meant to be get yer ass "off" the road. So much for MY humor!
| 197 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:34:09pm |
re: #176 Racer X
Harry Reid.
And wind farms do not produce cheap energy, but look at the demand for the energy produced by them.
Wind farm power is competitive. And it would be extremely competitive and more money would go towards producing and innovating them if carbon was priced into fossil and bio fuels.
You keep ignoring the point about pricing carbon.
| 198 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:34:16pm |
Re: the math. I don't suppose it would be useful here to link to Eric Raymond's analysis of the CRU programs?
| 199 |
Summer Seale Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:34:19pm |
Oh, and remember everyone: If it is based on science and you don't agree with it, it's a "religion" that is heretical and contrary to "Christianity".
Talking point number one.
| 200 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:34:39pm |
| 201 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:35:07pm |
re: #192 freetoken
Would Jesus do math?
Jesus was way cool.
He could have solved the most complicated math equation ever written...
| 202 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:35:14pm |
re: #197 recusancy
Wind farm power is competitive. And it would be extremely competitive and more money would go towards producing and innovating them if carbon was priced into fossil and bio fuels.
You keep ignoring the point about pricing carbon.
Wind farms kill birds. See: Lawsuits.
| 204 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:35:30pm |
re: #197 recusancy
Wind farm power is competitive. And it would be extremely competitive and more money would go towards producing and innovating them if carbon was priced into fossil and bio fuels.
You keep ignoring the point about pricing carbon.
I'm starting to get your point - you want the price to go up for fossil fuel energy. Right?
| 205 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:35:55pm |
A couple of months ago I came across one of those many Beavis and Butthead blogs and he was so angwy he wrote, "I hereby declare war on Little Green Footballs!"
Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.
| 206 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:36:11pm |
re: #202 Cannadian Club Akbar
Wind farms kill birds. See: Lawsuits.
Bullshit. Buildings kill more birds then windfarms.
| 207 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:36:42pm |
re: #192 freetoken
Would Jesus do math?
What kind of car did Jesus drive?
A Honda. Acts 2:1 And in the fulfilling of the day of Pentecost, they were all with one accord in one place.
| 209 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:37:13pm |
re: #206 recusancy
Bullshit. Buildings kill more birds then windfarms.
So, no enviromentalist group will sue? Then, fuck, build 'em.
| 210 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:37:18pm |
re: #204 Racer X
I'm starting to get your point - you want the price to go up for fossil fuel energy. Right?
I want the price to properly reflect it's cost. Right now we aren't factoring in the cost that carbon in the air will be.
| 211 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:37:22pm |
re: #198 midow
Re: the math. I don't suppose it would be useful here to link to Eric Raymond's analysis of the CRU programs?
No, it wouldn't.
Raymond's "analysis" is ridiculous. He looked at one tiny programming module that applied corrections, then decided it was proof of wrongdoing with NO CONTEXT whatsoever, based on the COMMENTS that were in the source code.
It's beyond ludicrous.
| 212 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:37:27pm |
re: #202 Cannadian Club Akbar
Wind farms kill birds. See: Lawsuits.
And for each bird killed, figure maybe ten bats; potentially a much worse situation. (See mosquito control)
| 213 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:37:40pm |
re: #199 Summer
Oh, and remember everyone: If it is based on science and you don't agree with it, it's a "religion" that is heretical and contrary to "Christianity".
Talking point number one.
*scribbles that down for future reference*
| 214 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:37:48pm |
re: #210 recusancy
I want the price to properly reflect it's cost. Right now we aren't factoring in the cost that carbon in the air will be.
I see.
| 215 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:38:10pm |
re: #211 Charles
No, it wouldn't.
Raymond's "analysis" is ridiculous. He looked at one tiny programming module that applied corrections, then decided it was proof of wrongdoing with NO CONTEXT whatsoever, based on the COMMENTS that were in the source code.
It's beyond ludicrous.
Well, OK. Notice I didn't actually provide the link :)
| 216 |
zuckerlilly Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:38:15pm |
re: #155 Charles
Hey, come on! I'm waiting to find out which part of "the math" doesn't work. Don't leave before you enlighten me.
| 217 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:38:26pm |
Singing for a bad-ass Marine's funeral tomorrow. The pumpkin pie is gone. And, now? Math.
Weekend is starting out in the crapper.
| 219 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:38:41pm |
re: #212 midow
And for each bird killed, figure maybe ten bats; potentially a much worse situation. (See mosquito control)
We should find something that kills skeeters.
| 221 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:39:37pm |
re: #219 Cannadian Club Akbar
We should find something that kills skeeters.
A power source that inputs mosquitoes and outputs electricity. Ideal
| 222 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:40:02pm |
Man... Any complaint or red herring is used to shoot down any idea. They're worried about bats and lawsuits from hippies but not worried in the least from nuclear meltdowns and lawsuits from communities.
| 223 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:40:16pm |
re: #216 zuckerlilly
Again? I posted the counter study to that before. Neither of which are peer reviewed.
Sorry, I know how "peer reviewed" is a bad word in certain circles these days.
| 224 |
bloodnok Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:40:20pm |
re: #217 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Singing for a bad-ass Marine's funeral tomorrow. The pumpkin pie is gone. And, now? Math.
Weekend is starting out in the crapper.
Upding for that. I used to play taps at veterans funerals. It's such an honor.
| 225 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:40:21pm |
re: #216 zuckerlilly
The fool who wrote that "paper" is actually denying that the greenhouse effect exists at all.
Are you aware of how ridiculous that is? Do you realize that the greenhouse effect has been documented and proven science for decades?
Good freaking grief.
| 226 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:40:21pm |
Q: Did they drink in Biblical times?
A: They sure did! They named one entire book He Brews!
| 227 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:40:54pm |
re: #219 Cannadian Club Akbar
Skeeter Davis died of cancer.
| 228 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:41:08pm |
re: #219 Cannadian Club Akbar
We should find something that kills skeeters.
Mossberg 10 gauge. You need to practice, though.
| 229 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:41:47pm |
And now we have the combination creationist/climate deniers showing up, to argue that a belief in creationism should be perfectly acceptable in a scientist. Unbelievable.
| 230 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:42:25pm |
re: #222 recusancy
Man... Any complaint or red herring is used to shoot down any idea. They're worried about bats and lawsuits from hippies but not worried in the least from nuclear meltdowns and lawsuits from communities.
Dude. You want the price of oil to go sky high so that alternative energy will be competitive? Really?
When the price of gasoline skyrocketed a year or so ago the price of food shot way up as well. As did other commodities.
| 231 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:42:53pm |
re: #226 SteveC
Q: Did they drink in Biblical times?
A: They sure did! They named one entire book He Brews!
Wisemen wore red hard-hats. Bible sez they came from a "far".
| 232 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:43:05pm |
| 233 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:43:43pm |
| 234 |
Irenicum Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:44:17pm |
Well kids, I'm off to other sites. Hope to be back later tonight. I wonder who'll get the bat by the time I get back?
| 235 |
Cheechako Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:44:30pm |
re: #163 Sharmuta
Yes- I found some other links that show NASA can take a long time to process their requests. However, I also found a link that said NASA was one of the better agencies at getting their released FOIA requests onto their website:
So they are a mixed bag. I'm still not finding any information on why CEI is claiming a two year lag except that the courts must be allowing it for some reason, and we're not getting the full story from the deniers.
An agency can notify the FOIA requester that because of the scope of the request it will need more time to process. Just think about it. Technically, for a full blown FOIA search, every individual computer in the agency will need to be examined for relevant information. Plus all written document files. Then all relevant files will have to be documented and indexed. The agency will need to keep (in a separate location) a copy of each document they send to the requester. In most cases, all the relevant documents will be converted to electronic format for ease of record keeping. It's a thankless task.
| 236 |
Summer Seale Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:44:47pm |
re: #229 Charles
And now we have the combination creationist/climate deniers showing up, to argue that a belief in creationism should be perfectly acceptable in a scientist. Unbelievable.
It's the three denials: Deny Climate Change, Deny Evolution, Deny Obama's Birth Certificate.
Deny, deny, deny.
It's like the Arab League with the three No's. And they wonder why we think they are extremists.
| 237 |
Neutral President Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:45:09pm |
re: #155 Charles
Hey, come on! I'm waiting to find out which part of "the math" doesn't work. Don't leave before you enlighten me.
I was waiting for this...
dS/dt = (k)∑(k=1) MkSk + Q/T + Sgen
Yeah, yeah and there are 'no transitional forms' either... wait a minute...
Funny how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics always comes up where anti-science kooks are yammering about something they cant and don't want to understand.
| 238 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:45:31pm |
| 239 |
Irenicum Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:46:02pm |
re: #226 SteveC
I actually just bought a beer here in NY called HE'BREW: The Chosen Beer. I couldn't resist!
| 240 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:46:41pm |
re: #239 Irenicum
I actually just bought a beer here in NY called HE'BREW: The Chosen Beer. I couldn't resist!
I've tried it - tasty stuff!
| 241 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:46:46pm |
re: #230 Racer X
Dude. You want the price of oil to go sky high so that alternative energy will be competitive? Really?
When the price of gasoline skyrocketed a year or so ago the price of food shot way up as well. As did other commodities.
Food prices sky rocketed because of world wide droughts (climate change effects anyone?) and that idiots were trying to use our food supply for fuel. That quickly was found to be a bad idea. And if you think food prices sky rocketed off of that, what do you think will happen when farmable land becomes harder to come by due to climate change?
| 242 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:46:46pm |
| 243 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:47:18pm |
re: #231 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Wisemen wore red hard-hats. Bible sez they came from a "far".
There's no way they could stage a live nativity scene at (your favorite school's arch rival). They couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.
| 244 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:48:45pm |
| 245 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:49:17pm |
| 247 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:50:16pm |
Stop the climate change scientific fascist steam roller now!
Do it for the bats!
| 248 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:50:28pm |
re: #245 recusancy
What do you care? Are you really making this argument?
Environmentalist make the argument.
| 249 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:51:07pm |
Sure, why not. And bats are important to several ecologies, and are threatened by wind turbines. It's a pertinent argument, I believe. Turbines should be bird- and bat-safe
| 250 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:51:55pm |
re: #248 Cannadian Club Akbar
Environmentalist make the argument.
The nutty ones will. But they already do. PETA sent a letter to Obama telling him not to kill flies for god's sakes. Do you think they matter? No.
| 251 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:51:55pm |
re: #241 recusancy
Food prices sky rocketed because of world wide droughts (climate change effects anyone?) and that idiots were trying to use our food supply for fuel. That quickly was found to be a bad idea. And if you think food prices sky rocketed off of that, what do you think will happen when farmable land becomes harder to come by due to climate change?
I hear you. I think intentionally increasing fuel costs is a bad idea. We can come up with alternative fuels that are clean and cost effective. If we build 20 new nuclear plants in the next few years the price of oil will decrease, along with CO2 emissions.
Win / win.
| 252 |
Big Steve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:51:56pm |
Boy for a "nontroversy" this topic sure does angry up the blood is some!
| 253 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:52:12pm |
The bats need our help. Won't you look into your heart and give until it hurts?
| 254 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:53:03pm |
re: #250 recusancy
The nutty ones will. But they already do. PETA sent a letter to Obama telling him not to kill flies for god's sakes. Do you think they matter? No.
No, they just jam the courts with bullshit lawsuits. NEXT!
| 255 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:53:39pm |
re: #249 midow
Sure, why not. And bats are important to several ecologies, and are threatened by wind turbines. It's a pertinent argument, I believe. Turbines should be bird- and bat-safe
Well.. I'm glad you care so much about ecology. You are probably a fervent supporter of counteracting climate change so that we don't lose so many species and local ecologies are not upset to much then hu?
| 256 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:54:23pm |
re: #254 Cannadian Club Akbar
No, they just jam the courts with bullshit lawsuits. NEXT!
The IRONY is seeping considering the topic of this thread.
| 257 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:54:29pm |
re: #250 recusancy
The nutty ones will. But they already do. PETA sent a letter to Obama telling him not to kill flies for god's sakes. Do you think they matter? No.
PETA sent a letter to the University of Georgia asking them to replace UGA with a robot. *rolls eyes*
| 258 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:54:51pm |
re: #253 Charles
What is your beer of choice, Charles?
| 259 |
allegro Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:55:00pm |
Taking all things into consideration isn't nutty, it's wise. Being aware of a problem means measures can be taken to counteract it. The bird/bat issue isn't at all insurmountable.
| 260 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:55:33pm |
re: #256 recusancy
The IRONY is seeping considering the topic of this thread.
Yes. Some can't see it is environmentalist stopping alternative energy.
| 261 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:56:02pm |
re: #258 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
What is your beer of choice, Charles?
Anything that isn't made from bats.
| 263 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:56:39pm |
re: #255 recusancy
Well.. I'm glad you care so much about ecology. You are probably a fervent supporter of counteracting climate change so that we don't lose so many species and local ecologies are not upset to much then hu?
First I would have to believe that counteracting climate change is possible, something I haven't bought into yet. But putting up machines that destroy a part of the ecology with no good benefit (other than big tax breaks for the wind power companies) is likely not a good idea.
| 264 |
zuckerlilly Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:57:13pm |
re: #225 Charles
The fool who wrote that "paper" is actually denying that the greenhouse effect exists at all.
Are you aware of how ridiculous that is? Do you realize that the greenhouse effect has been documented and proven science for decades?
Good freaking grief.
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich teaches Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig (Germany).
Ralf D. Tscheuschner is theoretical physicist
So you have reviewed the paper and what exactly is your science degree?
| 265 |
Big Steve Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:57:46pm |
| 266 |
Raryn Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:57:57pm |
re: #257 SteveC
PETA sent a letter to the University of Georgia asking them to replace UGA with a robot. *rolls eyes*
Two words: Sea Kittens.
| 267 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:58:02pm |
re: #263 midow
First I would have to believe that counteracting climate change is possible, something I haven't bought into yet. But putting up machines that destroy a part of the ecology with no good benefit (other than big tax breaks for the wind power companies) is likely not a good idea.
Like NBC?
| 268 |
bloodnok Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:58:16pm |
| 269 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:58:46pm |
We all want the same thing - a nice place to live, a decent job and food on the table. Neither side wants to kill off people for profit or fun.
Intentionally raising the price of fossil fuel will have negative effects on the quality of life - especially for those in the third world.
Nuclear power could have serious negative effects if done haphazardly. We need to get it right. Many countries are doing it now without any major problems. Why is it OK for Iran to have nuclear power but not America?
| 270 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:58:57pm |
| 271 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:59:22pm |
Charles
This is your blog - so you are entitled to post what you want with your own comments. Some disagree with you.
1 At the start of this you said the CRU stuff was a hack, defintely not a leak. Do you now accept that it looks more like a leak ? Which in English law would be difficult to be proven as a crime)
2 You have been asked MANY times to comment on the Harry-file stuff. Which suggests that the whole coding of the data is a mess, that there were all sorts of unexplained "fudges" of the basic data. Have you ever responded to this ? I THINK NOT .
3 You predicted that the whole "Climategate" thing would be dead, press coverage was effectively finished. Do you agree you are wrong? Over here the story is on TV, radio, and the newspapers. And there is plenty of new stuff in the US press.
4 You have taken a strong - no TOTAL - view on the whole issue. You call anyone who is sceptical - unsure - a "denier". Isn't that a bit over the top ? Or - insulting ?
| 272 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:59:30pm |
| 273 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:59:43pm |
| 274 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 7:59:50pm |
re: #264 zuckerlilly
I can't believe you actually expect that nonsense to be taken seriously.
| 276 |
Raryn Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:00:16pm |
The thing I hate most about the "left wing" energy policy is that they don't even bring up the possibility of new nuclear plants. Done right, with modern technologies that have popped up since the 70s (the last time we were building nuclear plants), there's no more effective carbon-neutral energy generation method.
| 277 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:00:38pm |
re: #272 midow
Aren't they the same thing?
Yes. But GE owns NBC. And I forget where the head of one of those works now.
| 278 |
Raryn Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:01:22pm |
re: #269 Racer X
We all want the same thing - a nice place to live, a decent job and food on the table. Neither side wants to kill off people for profit or fun.
Intentionally raising the price of fossil fuel will have negative effects on the quality of life - especially for those in the third world.
Nuclear power could have serious negative effects if done haphazardly. We need to get it right. Many countries are doing it now without any major problems. Why is it OK for Iran to have nuclear power but not America?
Damn, my post was ninja'd :p
| 279 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:01:33pm |
re: #269 Racer X
We all want the same thing - a nice place to live, a decent job and food on the table. Neither side wants to kill off people for profit or fun.
Obviously, you've never heard of Blackwater!
/// Let's throw all the lunacy out there! It'll be fun!
| 280 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:01:48pm |
| 281 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:02:11pm |
re: #280 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Not Labatt's Blue?
Charles? Why do you hate Canada? Eh?
That's just how evil I am.
| 282 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:02:33pm |
re: #276 Raryn
The thing I hate most about the "left wing" energy policy is that they don't even bring up the possibility of new nuclear plants. Done right, with modern technologies that have popped up since the 70s (the last time we were building nuclear plants), there's no more effective carbon-neutral energy generation method.
Look closer. It's part of the left's solution. It's just not the end all be all.
| 283 |
Caboose Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:04:01pm |
re: #13 iceweasel
Decent diary at Open left that I think nails the situation, and also uses the fabulous term 'right wing puke funnel':
CHOMP...
Tis only fair that the right have a puke funnel, the left has had a high-pressure, high-velocity s#it nozzle for years...
| 285 |
SteveC Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:05:23pm |
Well, the fire is low in the hearth and the house is getting cold. Time to close out for the evening.
A good night to one and all!
| 286 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:06:20pm |
re: #273 recusancy
I can't believe this is still a topic of discussion but:
But that article is about birds, not bats. A recent field survey of Texas wind farms found numerous dead bats, many believed to have died from decompression effects from flying too near, not contacting, the turbine blades. I will see if I can locate a link for that; saw it on local TV about 3 months ago
| 287 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:06:24pm |
re: #271 JohninLondon
Charles
This is your blog - so you are entitled to post what you want with your own comments. Some disagree with you.
1 At the start of this you said the CRU stuff was a hack, defintely not a leak.
No, I did not say anything like that. I said the university had released a statement calling it a hack. They did.
Do you now accept that it looks more like a leak ? Which in English law would be difficult to be proven as a crime)
No, I don't. But thanks for confirming the reason why you deniers are so anxious to prove that it's a leak -- because it gets you off the hook for suborning illegal activity.
2 You have been asked MANY times to comment on the Harry-file stuff. Which suggests that the whole coding of the data is a mess, that there were all sorts of unexplained "fudges" of the basic data. Have you ever responded to this ? I THINK NOT .
Try to keep up. I've responded to this stupid bogus point several times. It's in my comments. I don't feel like repeating myself AGAIN.
3 You predicted that the whole "Climategate" thing would be dead, press coverage was effectively finished. Do you agree you are wrong? Over here the story is on TV, radio, and the newspapers. And there is plenty of new stuff in the US press.
It's dying the death. It's not going anywhere. Kaput. Finito. It's over, Johnnie.
| 288 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:07:25pm |
re: #271 JohninLondon
Charles
The word "denier" has a clear connotaion, a clear link to Holocaust denial. It is an offensive word, an insult, And you know that.
I am very surprised that you sling it around at every turn.
| 289 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:07:33pm |
re: #276 Raryn
The thing I hate most about the "left wing" energy policy is that they don't even bring up the possibility of new nuclear plants. Done right, with modern technologies that have popped up since the 70s (the last time we were building nuclear plants), there's no more effective carbon-neutral energy generation method.
| 290 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:08:18pm |
re: #288 JohninLondon
Charles
The word "denier" has a clear connotaion, a clear link to Holocaust denial. It is an offensive word, an insult, And you know that.
I am very surprised that you sling it around at every turn.
No, the word "denier" means "one who denies facts." There's no rule that says it can only be used to describe Holocaust deniers. But nice try.
| 291 |
zuckerlilly Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:09:10pm |
re: #274 Charles
I can't believe you actually expect that nonsense to be taken seriously.
So if they are fools you can easily refute their maths, can you? I can't wait. I'm buzzing with anticipation.
So, it’s early in the morning here (5:00 am), I’ll check it tomorrow.
| 292 |
Raryn Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:09:22pm |
re: #282 recusancy
Look closer. It's part of the left's solution. It's just not the end all be all.
At least in the last election, I personally heard McCain talk about his desire to see new nuclear plants up by the mid 2010's, and I never heard Obama mention it in regards to his energy policy at all.
While there are some recent examples of nuclear power being considered by the legislature, I haven't heard of anything definitive getting off the ground floor.
| 293 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:10:16pm |
re: #291 zuckerlilly
Cellphone in the tunnel!
| 294 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:10:30pm |
re: #292 Raryn
At least in the last election, I personally heard McCain talk about his desire to see new nuclear plants up by the mid 2010's, and I never heard Obama mention it in regards to his energy policy at all.
While there are some recent examples of nuclear power being considered by the legislature, I haven't heard of anything definitive getting off the ground floor.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 295 |
Caboose Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:10:33pm |
re: #269 Racer X
We all want the same thing - a nice place to live, a decent job and food on the table. Neither side wants to kill off people for profit or fun.
Intentionally raising the price of fossil fuel will have negative effects on the quality of life - especially for those in the third world.
Nuclear power could have serious negative effects if done haphazardly. We need to get it right. Many countries are doing it now without any major problems. Why is it OK for Iran to have nuclear power but not America?
" 'Cuz a' Three-Mile Island, dood! And all them rock stars in the '80's said it was a bad thing and they know, man, they KNOW! And everything that happened in The China Syndrome was based on real, facts; Hollywood wouldn't lie to us! Especially Jane Fonda! Nukes are really bad for harshing one's mellow!!! We hippies on the left know what is good for all of you and if you don't believe it, we have camps for that; Uncle Mao & Uncle Pol & Uncle Joe showed us how to do it. Dude."
/them that what know better than us
| 296 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:10:36pm |
re: #216 zuckerlilly
That Gerlich paper is so bad it has become the example of a bad physics paper!
Seriously, why do you suppose it couldn't make it into one of the mainstream physics journals?
| 297 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:10:55pm |
re: #289 recusancy
At least Steven Chu has faith in Americans.
[Link: blogs.wsj.com...]
Fucking elitist.
| 298 |
Raryn Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:11:16pm |
re: #289 recusancy
The PR effort saw direct appeals to the farming and nuclear lobbies – some of the fiercest critics of Obama's clean energy agenda – with Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, calling for new nuclear plants to re-establish America's technological dominance in the world.
"I think nuclear power is going to be a very important factor in getting us to a low carbon future," Chu told the Senate's environment and public works committee. "Quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead on industrial nuclear power. We have lost that lead as we have lost the lead in many energy technologies and we want to get it back."
Interesting. I don't remember having read about that specific visit
| 299 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:12:06pm |
re: #291 zuckerlilly
So if they are fools you can easily refute their maths, can you? I can't wait. I'm buzzing with anticipation.
So, it’s early in the morning here (5:00 am), I’ll check it tomorrow.
I hope you aren't holding your breath. I have much better things to do with my time than chase after this kind of idiocy.
| 300 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:14:38pm |
This thread is really beginning to remind me of our old creationism threads. Good times.
| 301 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:14:44pm |
| 302 |
midow Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:15:15pm |
re: #300 Charles
This thread is really beginning to remind me of our old creationism threads. Good times.
Yes, we're keeping it real, man
| 303 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:19:35pm |
Good evening, all. I just got home after a 10-hour shift at work. How is everyone tonight?
| 305 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:20:23pm |
| 306 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:20:39pm |
re: #300 Charles
This thread is really beginning to remind me of our old creationism threads. Good times.
Why do you equate creation nutters with people who are sceptical about AGW ? Sounds like smear by association to me. As does the word "denier" - which has a known connotion. It does not help the debate.
| 307 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:21:31pm |
re: #303 Dark_Falcon
Good evening, all. I just got home after a 10-hour shift at work. How is everyone tonight?
Hi DF!
We got bats!
| 308 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:21:43pm |
re: #306 JohninLondon
Why do you equate creation nutters with people who are sceptical about AGW ?
Simple -- because they are often the same people. See: Roy Spencer, the Discovery Institute, everyone on Fox News, etc.
As does the word "denier" - which has a known connotion. It does not help the debate.
Now you're repeating yourself.
| 309 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:22:03pm |
| 310 |
Caboose Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:22:20pm |
I largely refuse to take either side in this arguement. The left overplays the issue and the right underplays it and the truth isn't to be seen from all the verbal pollution coming from both sides. I believe in being a good steward of the earth's resources and treading lightly as possible, but I'm not about to give up everything on the basis of the fact that i still haven't been told just exactly what is the ideal temperature for the planet, how we know for certain (what if we are wrong?) and why is the bulk to the burden being placed squarely on the US and places like China (which is at least starting to make noises like they will take responsibility) and India are largely give a pass on regulation?
I need proof, dammit, not rhetoric!
| 311 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:22:22pm |
re: #306 JohninLondon
Why do you equate creation nutters with people who are sceptical about AGW ? Sounds like smear by association to me. As does the word "denier" - which has a known connotion. It does not help the debate.
Because they suffer from same lack of cognition and logic...
| 312 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:22:28pm |
re: #299 Charles
I hope you aren't holding your breath. I have much better things to do with my time than chase after this kind of idiocy.
This is the counter study:
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
American Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge NY, 11961
Intro:
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.
Statement from American Physical Society:
National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE
(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
| 313 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:22:39pm |
re: #303 Dark_Falcon
Good evening, all. I just got home after a 10-hour shift at work. How is everyone tonight?
My brother thinks he left 4 beers in my fridge. Not so much.
| 314 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:24:22pm |
re: #299 Charles
I hope you aren't holding your breath. I have much better things to do with my time than chase after this kind of idiocy.
If you're interested, Frank Smith has written quite a bit about the Gerlich fiasco: The Arrogance of Physicists
And the blog of Eli Rabett, whom I linked earlier, has often picked apart the Gerlich idiocy.
Several websites have illuminated how bad the paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner is.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner have never been able to answer their critics because there are no answers.
Even other deniers are ashamed of G&T, as Smith points out:
But they [G&T] also assert (essentially 4 of the six claims in their original abstract) that the whole framework describing the natural greenhouse effect is fundamentally wrong. That framework uses balance of energy flux (the first law of thermodynamics) and a variety of averages over Earth's surface to show the natural greenhouse effect has warmed our planet's surface by at least 33 degrees Celsius, above what it would be without infrared-trapping gases in the atmosphere. In February 2008 I posted a response using the most straightforward-possible mathematical reasoning in a Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect. This was of course no new scientific result - Fourier and Tyndall had it right in the 19th century. Nevertheless my posting received several interesting responses. First from some very prominent global warming "skeptics" who thanked me for my clear refutation of the nonsense of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, an article that they found personally embarrassing to be in any way associated with.
Leave it to a creationist to get pulled into G&T's fantasy universe.
| 315 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:25:01pm |
re: #313 Cannadian Club Akbar
My brother thinks he left 4 beers in my fridge. Not so much.
*burp*
What beer?
| 316 |
jaunte Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:25:25pm |
For anyone interested in some more detail on the refutation of the G and T paper, here's Atmoz:
[Link: atmoz.org...]
| 317 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:25:47pm |
re: #312 Gus 802
Not surprised at all. Sometimes it just takes one look to realize that something is completely batshit crazy. And a "paper" that argues there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect is one of those times.
| 318 |
Caboose Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:29:42pm |
re: #315 Racer X
*burp*
What beer?
I think I have a few Magic Hats left in the fridge (they have cool sayings under the bottle caps; this one says "Find a Cure in the Soup de Jour". OK, it don't make much sense, but they beat a batch number!)
| 319 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:30:49pm |
re: #317 Charles
Not surprised at all. Sometimes it just takes one look to realize that something is completely batshit crazy. And a "paper" that argues there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect is one of those times.
Now we have CEI suing NASA for data under the FOIA. Makes you wonder whom they will give it to for further analysis since CEI is not qualified to analyze that data. Some industry hack no doubt.
Speaking of hacks, Chris Horner is a Fox News, Glenn Beck, Hannity regular. He also "writes" for Big Government. He speaks in sweeping terms and bring along the usual alarmism about "world government" and such. Not unlike the health care debate this is also tinged with the socialism meme.
| 320 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:32:05pm |
re: #73 albusteve
that's a WMD nowdays!...I built a few rockets in my day
My dad and I were in a cornfield (post harvest) in Iowa - used the battery in his 57 Baby Blue Caddy Convertible to supply the juice to the motor of the rocket. After the 3rd or 4th launch ... the frikkin' motor in the rocket caught on fire. Dad freaked ... I was running to put the fire out and save my rocket. He ordered me back into the car and hauled ass in reverse. I appreciated his drive for our preservation but he didn't know shit about the rocket motors physics and combustibility - I think I was 14.
It could not explode - only burn.
He got together with a neighbor (a retired metal worker with lots of toys in his garage) some days later - a rocket fuselage was made out of metal vs cardboard and the seam joining the metal was a fold.
I thot that these guys were the stupidest on the planet. The weight addition alone was a bust but the fold mass would cause the rocket to veer off to one side. I kept my mouth shut and let them proceed. The resulting launch was as I had predicted in my mind. It groaned up a few yards and keeled over on it side - the nosecone popping about 20 seconds later..
I did rocketry with my boyhood friends from then on in secret. We would go down to the Arkansas Riverbed in Tulsa - lots of sand - and privacy - I worked on and hid my rockets in the attic over the garage.
I figured it was best to let my dad and the neighbor stick to lawyering and sheet metal.
| 321 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:32:51pm |
re: #316 jaunte
For anyone interested in some more detail on the refutation of the G and T paper, here's Atmoz:
[Link: atmoz.org...]
Yet another one. That's three so far.
Anyone speaking out for the G/T study besides Sean Hannity and American Thinker?
| 322 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:34:48pm |
re: #310 Caboose
I largely refuse to take either side in this arguement. The left overplays the issue and the right underplays it and the truth isn't to be seen from all the verbal pollution coming from both sides. I believe in being a good steward of the earth's resources and treading lightly as possible, but I'm not about to give up everything on the basis of the fact that i still haven't been told just exactly what is the ideal temperature for the planet, how we know for certain (what if we are wrong?) and why is the bulk to the burden being placed squarely on the US and places like China (which is at least starting to make noises like they will take responsibility) and India are largely give a pass on regulation?
I need proof, dammit, not rhetoric!
There is no 'ideal temperature'. That is a red herring argument. Climate change is just the climate changing faster (because of human inputs and feedback loops) then it can adapt and faster then humans can adapt.
The bulk of the burden is being put on the carbon emitting nations for, I would think, obvious reasons. India will not get a pass.
It sounds to me, like you would be open to believing in the science and that there's a problem, but it's considered a 'leftist' position to have and that is too uncomfortable a position to be in for yourself. If this was a cause the right was championing you would be behind it no problem. And that's just a sad reality.
| 323 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:37:55pm |
re: #321 Gus 802
Yet another one. That's three so far.
Anyone speaking out for the G/T study besides Sean Hannity and American Thinker?
The sheer ignorance is almost painful. The greenhouse effect has been completely uncontroversial, well-understood science for more than 100 years. There's absolutely no doubt that it's real. We even see it operating on other planets in our solar system; Venus is a perfect example of a runaway greenhouse effect leading to extremely high surface temperatures, because the atmosphere is so high in CO2.
| 324 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:38:37pm |
re: #287 Charles
It's dying the death. It's not going anywhere. Kaput. Finito. It's over, Johnnie.
Charles
1 You know very well that YOUR VIEW was that it was not an inside release of the files. You stated in comments when people suggested it was a leak. Or did you just accept, repeatedly, that what the UEA was truth just because they said so ?
All the stuff I have seen suggests that it was someone inside, releasing a set of stuff already put into one folder. Do you say this assumption is wrong ?
Whether it will prove illegal is immaterial. (If it was a whistleblower they will be fairly OK in UK law.)
So - after all your time looking at this stuff - are you still sure it was a hack ?
Your view that the whole thing has blown over is obviously wrong. Over here, I have heard it mentioned many times EVEN on the BBC there is lots of press coverage - more than a couple of days ago. The story is migrating from the blogs to the main media. Plus 7 million hits on Google for "ClimateGate"
| 325 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:38:49pm |
re: #271 JohninLondon
Charles
This is your blog - so you are entitled to post what you want with your own comments. Some disagree with you.
It really bothers you that Charles posts what you and “some” disagree with? Why is he uniquely not entitled to an opinion you disagree with. I happen to disagree with some parts of this issue, yet I’m happy to see Charles post his view.
Are you suggesting it's controversial what he posts and this needs to be stopped? That of course is one of the claims against Prof. Phil Jones et. al., attempts to suppress contrary opinions. I take you're bothered by this, yet you would do the same to Charles.
1 At the start of this you said the CRU stuff was a hack, defintely not a leak. Do you now accept that it looks more like a leak ? Which in English law would be difficult to be proven as a crime)
“Do you now accept” the true faith according to John? Why would someone need to accept “that it looks more like” a leak? In the absence of fact why should your speculatation be the only valid one?
2 You have been asked MANY times to comment on the Harry-file stuff. Which suggests that the whole coding of the data is a mess, that there were all sorts of unexplained "fudges" of the basic data. Have you ever responded to this ? I THINK NOT .
Geepers, ALL CAPS, killer point that. Actually Charles has mentioned the “Harry-file stuff” several times as well as the data manipulation allegations. That you MISSED IT shows that you are in fact uninformed of what is written here.
John, it's amazing how little you comprehend yet how emphatic you are that your statements are correct. Why this obsession with what Charles posts or writes? Can you not accept one dissenting voice in your echo chamber?
| 326 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:39:21pm |
re: #323 Charles
The sheer ignorance is almost painful. The greenhouse effect has been completely uncontroversial, well-understood science for more than 100 years. There's absolutely no doubt that it's real. We even see it operating on other planets in our solar system; Venus is a perfect example of a runaway greenhouse effect leading to extremely high surface temperatures, because the atmosphere is so high in CO2.
And any talk of colonizing Mars involves pumping in millions of tons of greenhouse gases.
| 327 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:39:27pm |
re: #323 Charles
The sheer ignorance is almost painful. The greenhouse effect has been completely uncontroversial, well-understood science for more than 100 years. There's absolutely no doubt that it's real. We even see it operating on other planets in our solar system; Venus is a perfect example of a runaway greenhouse effect leading to extremely high surface temperatures, because the atmosphere is so high in CO2.
The deniers simply don't want to concede any points to the other side. Denying the existence of a grenhouse effect is partisanship gone made.
| 328 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:40:23pm |
| 329 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:40:28pm |
Speaking of climate change, the recent NOVA 3-parter Becoming Human touches on the role that rapid climate change may have had in human evolution.
The three parts are worth watching, if you can still find them. They aren't quite as cutting edge as the Ardi special, or as eloquent as the BBC/Attenborough productions, but still worth the time. Part 3 can still be played online.
| 330 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:41:35pm |
| 331 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:42:33pm |
Nazis hate global warming...
Nick Griffin on Climate Change at EU
| 332 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:42:48pm |
re: #324 JohninLondon
Dude. AGW is real.
Who cares about a few stolen emails? It's a distraction intentionally meant to obfuscate the issue.
| 333 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:42:51pm |
re: #308 Charles
Charles
Other than here at your blog, I did not know what a creationist was. Certainly not among anyone I have ever known in my nearly-three-score-years-and-ten.
Which is why I think it is offensive - indeed cheap - of you to lump any sceptic on AGW in the same camp as the creationalist nutters.
| 335 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:44:04pm |
re: #324 JohninLondon
Plus 7 million hits on Google for "ClimateGate"
Well, Pamela Anderson gets over 10.2 million hits on Google.
So the question remains, which will be bigger and/or more true: Pamla's breasts, or "climategate".
| 336 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:44:05pm |
re: #331 Killgore Trout
New World Order! Green Industrial Complex! Pope Al Gore! Stalin! Mao!
| 337 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:44:23pm |
re: #333 JohninLondon
Charles
Other than here at your blog, I did not know what a creationist was. Certainly not among anyone I have ever known in my nearly-three-score-years-and-ten.
Which is why I think it is offensive - indeed cheap - of you to lump any sceptic on AGW in the same camp as the creationalist nutters.
And I've already pointed out that creationists and climate deniers are often the very same people, and even gave you several examples. That's why I think it's stupid - indeed really really dumb - of you to keep arguing about it.
| 338 |
enigma3535 Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:44:25pm |
Dudes and dudettes: IMHO, this debate is moot; the AGW deniers are going to win this one [if one can call precipitating the eventual collapse of the "golden age" of humanity, winning] ... we're all [personally] fine ... our kids' kids, not so much.
| 339 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:44:54pm |
re: #303 Dark_Falcon
Good evening, all. I just got home after a 10-hour shift at work. How is everyone tonight?
Ranting, challenging, raving, calmly stating points and I'm reminiscing.
| 340 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:45:14pm |
re: #331 Killgore Trout
Nazis hate global warming...
Nick Griffin on Climate Change at EU
Secular religious hysteria!
Green-Industrial-Complex!
| 341 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:45:19pm |
re: #331 Killgore Trout
I'm glad to see Inhofe has finally found his soulmate.
| 342 |
jpwhitmore Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:45:37pm |
Check out this comment from the spectator article
NO MORE LIBERAL LIES%P% 11.27.09 @ 4:45PM
If your bogus science was 'fact' you morons wouldn't have to lie about your assertions and threaten others who challenge your arguments.
The only thing we 'must' do is destroy you lying, power-mad pieces of human excrement-- and we will.
Hilarious and yet scary
| 343 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:46:33pm |
re: #342 jpwhitmore
Check out this comment from the spectator article
Hilarious and yet scary
It's mass insanity.
| 345 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:47:09pm |
re: #342 jpwhitmore
This is why the AGW argument has become so politicized.
| 346 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:47:40pm |
| 347 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:48:05pm |
re: #333 JohninLondon
Like I said above, anti-AGW people and creationists tend to share the same lack of cognition and logic...they also tend to share a lack of understanding of how science really works (that's a best-case scenario; at worst, they willfully deny, distort, and misrepresent science in order to fit their own rigid dogmas).
| 348 |
avanti Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:48:37pm |
re: #187 SteveC
A train leaves Chicago heading west, going 65 miles per hour. At the same moment, a train leaves Seattle heading East at 80 miles per hour. These two trains collide somewhere near Butte , Montana.
Knowing the direction and speed of both trains, aren't you glad you took the bus?
Here's one a lot of people get wrong. A car goes 30 MPH for a the first 1/2 mile of a one mile track, how fast will it have go for the second half mile to average 60 MPH over the mile.
| 349 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:49:15pm |
re: #344 jaunte
He sure knocks out all the catch phrases. It still doesn't make sense to me why it's a conservative value to deny global warming or evolution. There's nothing really conservative about it.
| 350 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:49:27pm |
re: #325 Bagua
Bagua
The first time I returned to this blogsite after several years you called me a racist. I asked you twice to withdraw, to apologise. You refused, twice.
So I never wish to pay any attention to anything you ever say.
Sorry, Sunshine. In my book you do not exist.
| 351 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:50:26pm |
The global warming predictions are based on models. Since I have spent much of my professional life working on models, and I want to comment on some obvious shortcomings I see in the global warming predictions.
The first question you ask about models is do they work? Do they accurately predict future actions? Since the current cooling trend was unforecasted, then it is obvious that the global warming models are not working, and need to be fixed.
The second question is are you including all of the variables? Do you include sunspots? Increased plant growth (and carbon absorption) as a function of temperature? Most models are kept secret, and so it is very difficult to determine what is or is not being done. I look forward to analyzing the one that was recently leaked. From papers I have read, many have been ignoring solar variance in the models, and much less predicting it through orbital induced variations.
The third question covers the mathematics in the model. Complex models need to have feedback terms. That means that the current results are used to modify future results. But when you include feedback into the equations, you can make a model unstable. In an extreme simplification, you wind up dividing by zero, which makes the output unpredictable.
Fortunately, there is a branch of mathematics called stability theory, which can be used to analyze your models. The mathematics of stability theory is extremely complex. Most college graduates have never even heard of it. It tends to be a graduate level study, and frequently at the PhD and post-doctorate levels.
In 1972, the Club of Rome published the results of their models of the global economy which showed the imminent collapse of civilization. With the first oil shock in 1973, this generated a debate just like the current global warming debate, though much of the debate was centered over limiting the number of children one should have.
Except civilization didn't collapse. It was discovered that while they had used 1000 equations to model the world, they hadn't done their stability analysis, or even tried to include significant feedback. The models went unstable, and that is what they published. Now, they are up to 200,000 equations, though I suspect that they still are unaware of stability theory.
One can ask if today's climatologists are aware of stability theory? I have looked at the degree requirements. Undergraduates have 2 to 4 math courses in their freshman and sophomore years. These courses end with an introduction to differential equations, which is just the first prerequisite for stability theory. A master's degree and doctorates can include math, but it is an elective. I suspect that most climatologists don't even know who Laplace is. And his transform is still just a prerequisite.
The fourth questions comes from a concept called a sparse data set. Do you have enough data to develop and test your models? The continental United States has a weather station for roughly every 100 square miles. Alaska has one for every 3200 square miles. And the US has more weather stations than almost anyone else. There are almost none reporting from the 70% of the earth that is covered from the ocean. Also, most weather stations only report the surface temperature. There is almost no data covering the different levels of the atmosphere. My personal experience from years of camping with a thermometer has shown that there is frequently 10s of degrees difference in temperature in locations separated by less than 100 feet. If you are only going to use one 2-dimensional data point per 100 square miles in your models, then you had better compensate for that in the results. Again, the procedures are frequently hidden, but I suspect that this is not being done.
Well, this will probably destroy what little Karma I already have, but so be it.
| 352 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:50:41pm |
re: #349 Killgore Trout
He sure knocks out all the catch phrases. It still doesn't make sense to me why it's a conservative value to deny global warming or evolution. There's nothing really conservative about it.
I don't think it is a "conservative" value -- but it definitely is a right wing value.
| 353 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:51:49pm |
re: #342 jpwhitmore
Check out this comment from the spectator article
Hilarious and yet scary
I'd laugh if it wasn't so terrifying. Sooner or later (and it's getting to be sooner) one the loons posting stuff like that is going to try to put his words into action. When that happens, the deniers who egged him on will have blood on their hands,
| 354 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:52:03pm |
re: #349 Killgore Trout
He sure knocks out all the catch phrases. It still doesn't make sense to me why it's a conservative value to deny global warming or evolution. There's nothing really conservative about it.
I made that statement a week or two ago here and pilloried for it.
| 355 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:52:05pm |
re: #351 Chip Designer
Wow. You're really onto something there. Have you let the scientists know all this stuff? I'm sure they'll stop using models as soon as they realize how futile it is.
| 356 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:53:00pm |
re: #350 JohninLondon
Bagua
The first time I returned to this blogsite after several years you called me a racist. I asked you twice to withdraw, to apologise. You refused, twice.
So I never wish to pay any attention to anything you ever say.
Sorry, Sunshine. In my book you do not exist.
Then why did you reply to Bagua, if they don't "exist" to you?
/either ignore him or STFU about it...you sound like you're trying start some shit and deflect some heat off what you've been saying in this thread
| 357 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:53:18pm |
re: #354 recusancy
Heh, People are used it it from me but I still catch a lot of flack too.
| 358 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:53:40pm |
Models can work. I spend my life working with them.
But you have to do it correctly. If you don't, then it is just another case of garbage in - garbage out.
| 359 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:53:42pm |
What have these socialists done! I long for the days before the Clean Water Act when toxic rivers would catch fire. Before the Clean Air Act when I could drive around the Belt Parkway dizzy from the emissions. When rivers would bubble from the chemical contents.
When our family would return home to our apartment in Brooklyn dizzy from the toxic air in North Jersey. In some places you can still see the volatile air fogging the night as if one were watching the tail exhaust from a fighter jet. Yes, the good old days. When Pittsburgh would turn as black as night from the steel mill production.
Those damn environmentalists have forced me to breath cleaner air and drink clean water!
//
| 360 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:54:30pm |
re: #358 Chip Designer
Models can work. I spend my life working with them.
But you have to do it correctly. If you don't, then it is just another case of garbage in - garbage out.
I hope you're going to get in contact with NASA's scientists right away and let them know where they've gone wrong.
| 361 |
jaunte Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:54:40pm |
re: #349 Killgore Trout
In his case, he's just a political opportunist, working the tools that will listen to him.
| 362 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:55:07pm |
re: #358 Chip Designer
Models can work. I spend my life working with them.
But you have to do it correctly. If you don't, then it is just another case of garbage in - garbage out.
How's that bullcrap armchair research going for you?
| 363 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:57:49pm |
re: #362 WindUpBird
How's that bullcrap armchair research going for you?
It's not theoretical. The simulations have to match reality. Chips have to work, or you lose a small fortune.
| 364 |
Racer X Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:57:54pm |
| 365 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:58:22pm |
re: #349 Killgore Trout
He sure knocks out all the catch phrases. It still doesn't make sense to me why it's a conservative value to deny global warming or evolution. There's nothing really conservative about it.
Sounded like another Tea Party speech. It's all the same for. The irony of course is that these are the same people talking about alarmism coming from the AGW camp.
Copenhagen is the new death panel. Truth be told is that there really isn't even a consensus with the member nations. There's a lot of negotiating being done and anyone that thinks the USA is going to offer anything without input from the energy, coal and oil industries is being naive.
| 366 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 8:59:01pm |
re: #356 talon_262
No The guy called me a racist. And refused twice to apologise. I can choose to ignore anything he says - but I can still refer to his nasty and unjustified insult.
| 367 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:02:05pm |
re: #363 Chip Designer
It's not theoretical. The simulations have to match reality. Chips have to work, or you lose a small fortune.
That is a fact. My father used to work IT for Amoco. He has sometimes talked about how simulations need to be designed to reflect the real-world. But from what I understand, the current AGW sims do a fairly good job of that.
| 368 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:02:20pm |
re: #366 JohninLondon
No The guy called me a racist. And refused twice to apologise. I can choose to ignore anything he says - but I can still refer to his nasty and unjustified insult.
Here, let me pull out my violin.
/
| 369 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:02:37pm |
re: #351 Chip Designer
In 1972, the Club of Rome published the results of their models of the global economy which showed the imminent collapse of civilization.
Care to site the page number on that?
Well, this will probably destroy what little Karma I already have, but so be it.
If you would stop projecting your own ideological biases and actually (1) support your assertions with links to original material, and (2) study up on the subject you are criticizing, perhaps then your karma would be in better shape.
| 370 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:03:38pm |
re: #350 JohninLondon
Bagua
The first time I returned to this blogsite after several years you called me a racist. I asked you twice to withdraw, to apologise. You refused, twice.
So I never wish to pay any attention to anything you ever say.
Sorry, Sunshine. In my book you do not exist.
I recall that conversation and you were wrong then and you're wrong now. Your charge was that I had "effectively called you a racist" was based upon your not understanding the definition of the word I did use. Later this morphed into your assertion of my literally having called you a "racist", and now you repeat that inaccuracy again as you did on a later thread.
That is exactly the problem with your reasoning, you misunderstand what is written, fail to comprehend when it is explained to you, and then emphatically insist that your misunderstanding is correct.
It's frustrating to try to reason with you if you persist in these adamant opinions with such poor comprehension.
| 371 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:04:34pm |
re: #368 Gus 802
Here, let me pull out my violin.
/
You can't play the violin, so don't pull it out of whatever place you keep it
| 373 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:05:52pm |
re: #371 JohninLondon
You can't play the violin, so don't pull it out of whatever place you keep it
[snicker]
| 374 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:05:54pm |
re: #363 Chip Designer
It's not theoretical. The simulations have to match reality. Chips have to work, or you lose a small fortune.
You make chips, you are not a climate scientist. You are still a human talking point in an armchair.
| 375 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:06:07pm |
re: #367 Dark_Falcon
That is a fact. My father used to work IT for Amoco. He has sometimes talked about how simulations need to be designed to reflect the real-world. But from what I understand, the current AGW sims do a fairly good job of that.
I am not so sure of that. In 2007, the models showed decreasing polar ice in 2008 and 2009. Instead, the minimum ice coverage increased. Likewise, there were forecasts for increasing numbers of hurricanes, which didn't happen. If your models predict the opposite of what actually occurred, then they aren't working and need to be revised until they do work.
| 376 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:07:59pm |
re: #375 Chip Designer
I am not so sure of that. In 2007, the models showed decreasing polar ice in 2008 and 2009. Instead, the minimum ice coverage increased.
That is not true.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
In fact, recent ice cap measurements show that polar ice is melting even FASTER than predicted by the models.
| 377 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:09:22pm |
re: #370 Bagua
I recall that conversation and you were wrong then and you're wrong now. Your charge was that I had "effectively called you a racist" was based upon your not understanding the definition of the word I did use. Later this morphed into your assertion of my literally having called you a "racist", and now you repeat that inaccuracy again as you did on a later thread.
That is exactly the problem with your reasoning, you misunderstand what is written, fail to comprehend when it is explained to you, and then emphatically insist that your misunderstanding is correct.
It's frustrating to try to reason with you if you persist in these adamant opinions with such poor comprehension.
You doth protest too much, Sunshine.
You know damn well you called me a racist. And refused to apologise. It is all there, in LGF archives.
| 378 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:09:29pm |
#376 is why I love this place. Watching a liar taken apart in real time!
| 379 |
jaunte Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:11:45pm |
30 April 2007:
Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that satellite and other observations show the Arctic ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the eighteen computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments.
[Link: nsidc.org...]
| 380 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:12:12pm |
re: #375 Chip Designer
In 2007, the models showed decreasing polar ice in 2008 and 2009.
Again... where are the references? Care to point out these "models"? Assuming they exists... do you understand what they are attempting to explain?
| 381 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:14:18pm |
Copenhagen ?
[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]
| 382 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:14:35pm |
re: #376 Charles
That is not true.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
In fact, recent ice cap measurements show that polar ice is melting even FASTER than predicted by the models.
And:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 383 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:14:48pm |
re: #377 JohninLondon
You doth protest too much, Sunshine.
You know damn well you called me a racist. And refused to apologise. It is all there, in LGF archives.
OK John, prove it. Cite the comment you claim is "in LGF archives" in which I use the word racist describing you.
Your assertion is false and based upon your failure to comprehend what I actually wrote. I took the time to explain this to you, but it was futile, you truly are blind to reason when it conflicts with your own bias.
| 384 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:15:54pm |
re: #369 freetoken
Care to site the page number on that?
Their report was in "The Limits to Growth", first published in 1972. It was subsequently revised to push the dates further out. I don't have my original any more, but is showed various minerals running out starting in the 1990s, and extreme population increases. It missed the feedback of lowered birth rates that has occurred in the latter 20th century.
| 385 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:19:26pm |
| 386 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:19:52pm |
re: #383 Bagua
OK John, prove it. Cite the comment you claim is "in LGF archives" in which I use the word racist describing you.
Your assertion is false and based upon your failure to comprehend what I actually wrote. I took the time to explain this to you, but it was futile, you truly are blind to reason when it conflicts with your own bias.
I will find the LGF reference. You often insult people - but on the occasion in question you went way beyond the pale. And you know it. I had never ever seen anything so insulting at LGF.
| 387 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:20:33pm |
re: #381 JohninLondon
Copenhagen ?
[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]
Of course you can expect the Telegraph and the Daily Fail to continue doing their best to hype this non-story as long as possible. The reason this data was stolen was specifically to sabotage the Copenhagen meeting, and the denial industry is going to work overtime to try to make that happen.
| 388 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:21:20pm |
re: #376 Charles
That is not true.
In fact, recent ice cap measurements show that polar ice is melting even FASTER than predicted by the models.
And this data shows that the minimum percentage coverage was greater in 2008 and2009 than in 2007.
| 389 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:23:35pm |
re: #384 Chip Designer
If anyone is interested, you can download an RTF version of Limits To Growth here:
[Link: www.clubofrome.org...]
From their abstract:
[...]
Our conclusions are :1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
[...]
| 390 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:23:39pm |
re: #381 JohninLondon
Copenhagen ?
[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]
So when Rep. David Vitter (R) isn't busy soliciting prostitutes while married he's able to deduce that this "could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history" and "nearly all of the international data and models supporting the theory of global warming would have been influenced by data corruption and fraud?"
The CRU news will have no impact in Copenhagen. It may nationally but it will only be prosecuted by Republicans in congress or perhaps a few coal and oil state Democrats.
| 391 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:25:11pm |
re: #387 Charles
Of course you can expect the Telegraph and the Daily Fail to continue doing their best to hype this non-story as long as possible. The reason this data was stolen was specifically to sabotage the Copenhagen meeting, and the denial industry is going to work overtime to try to make that happen.
I understand about the Daily Mail, but why would you say that about the Telegraph? I've always found it to be a good and reliable newspaper.
| 392 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:25:30pm |
re: #386 JohninLondon
I will find the LGF reference. You often insult people - but on the occasion in question you went way beyond the pale. And you know it. I had never ever seen anything so insulting at LGF.
Now you are simply slandering me John, and you have also called me "Sunshine" twice and yet I call you by your chosen nic.
Again, I never used the word Racist describing you. It is pitiful to remain angry weeks later based upon your failure to comprehend English or reason with a cool head.
| 393 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:27:28pm |
re: #388 Chip Designer
And this data shows that the minimum percentage coverage was greater in 2008 and2009 than in 2007.
Actually that's deviation from the mean. It wasn't greater in 2007. It shows that we lost more at the end of 2007 and into 2008. The following years showed lesser deviation but it's still in the negative (loss) direction.
| 394 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:29:11pm |
re: #391 Dark_Falcon
I understand about the Daily Mail, but why would you say that about the Telegraph? I've always found it to be a good and reliable newspaper.
There's a good deal of AGW denial going on at the Telegraph these days...
| 395 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:29:41pm |
re: #388 Chip Designer
And this data shows that the minimum percentage coverage was greater in 2008 and2009 than in 2007.
Here's the current model. As you can see there are deviations from the trend, as there always will be on any long term model. But the trend is down. And that so far has been absolutely what has happened.
| 396 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:29:48pm |
re: #391 Dark_Falcon
I understand about the Daily Mail, but why would you say that about the Telegraph? I've always found it to be a good and reliable newspaper.
Actually the Daily Mail has been mostly Agnostic on the subject of AGW until just recently when they started to print a few sceptical items.The Telegraph, like most of the MSM and all main political parities has always been pro-AGW.
| 397 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:29:50pm |
re: #391 Dark_Falcon
I understand about the Daily Mail, but why would you say that about the Telegraph? I've always found it to be a good and reliable newspaper.
The Telegraph is a hardcore climate denial mouthpiece. Writer James Delingpole is one of the craziest anti-AGW journalists currently employed at a major newspaper.
| 398 |
jaunte Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:30:02pm |
re: #390 Gus 802
So when Rep. David Vitter (R) isn't busy soliciting prostitutes while married he's able to deduce that this "could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history" and "nearly all of the international data and models supporting the theory of global warming would have been influenced by data corruption and fraud?"
The CRU news will have no impact in Copenhagen. It may nationally but it will only be prosecuted by Republicans in congress or perhaps a few coal and oil state Democrats.
Vitter says he's checked in with God and arranged forgiveness for his lapse; maybe he can negotiate some climate stabilization next time.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]
| 399 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:30:28pm |
re: #396 Bagua
Actually the Daily Mail has been mostly Agnostic on the subject of AGW until just recently when they started to print a few sceptical items.The Telegraph, like most of the MSM and all main political parities has always been pro-AGW.
Not true. The Telegraph is anti-AGW -- extremely so.
| 400 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:30:40pm |
re: #383 Bagua
OK John, prove it. Cite the comment you claim is "in LGF archives" in which I use the word racist describing you.
Your assertion is false and based upon your failure to comprehend what I actually wrote. I took the time to explain this to you, but it was futile, you truly are blind to reason when it conflicts with your own bias.
Since JiL brought this up (no doubt to change the subject), I went back to that thread and found your comment where you did indeed insinuate his reasoning for wanting to pin ACORN to the wall was "racist", only not in as few words. Quoth Bagua:
Point 3 - endless voter-registration fraud. Please don't make out ACORN is not a serial offender. Any other organisation that had such a record would have tightened up its procedures long since, instituted effective auditing.This has been a problem with some of their chapters and IIRC there have been several prosecutions as a result. Part of the problem is it is their employees who commit this fraud for money on an individual basis. Check out how many employees of Walmart are prosecuted for larceny and fraud, does that make Walmart a criminal enterprise?
Point 4 – […] Looks like guilt to me […]
Be succinct, that whole paragraph expands on the five words I excerpted.
OK, so it all looks guilty to you therefore it must be, "let’s throw them all in jail, who needs actual charges and a trial when we are going on our hunches, after all, they're Blacks right, they must be guilty." That seems to sum up your view.
[...]
Like I said - a disgrace to American democracy, ACORN stinks to high heaven.
Right, like you said. You proved nothing and alleged much.
I’m no fan of Acorn myself, but I see them for what they are. You on the other hand have a vivid imagination and a great deal of bias and no doubt bigotry.
Bagua, in the context of that thread, you were wrong to insinuate JiL was being racist with his remarks (though he was being obtuse and a bonehead, IMO)...man up and apologize.
| 401 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:32:07pm |
re: #400 talon_262
Bagua, in the context of that thread, you were wrong to insinuate JiL was being racist with his remarks (though he was being obtuse and a bonehead, IMO)...man up and apologize.
Quite Concur.
| 402 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:32:36pm |
Models are models. The map is not the territory. We do not have computers powerful enough to encompass what is or has been happening. It's being worked on.
We do know that there has been a recent significant shift in our environment.
Can we do something to change it without causing chaos?
Do we know the mechanics of the cosmos and it's effect on our planet well enough to take specific action?
This will be a never ending pissing contest and we will live with the decisions of our elected leaders whom some, I fear, think they know it all already.
I vote for moderation while we attempt to figure this out.
| 403 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:33:06pm |
re: #392 Bagua
It was not many weeks ago. As you know full well.
Sure, Sunshine, you did not use the word racist per se. But your words meant just the same. It was a filthy smear, because in your book I was the wrong side of the debate. Like I said - I had never met such a smear over some years at LGF.
When I find the reference in the earlier thread, I will post it. Then people can judge for themselves whether or not you called me a racist.
| 404 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:33:55pm |
re: #388 Chip Designer
And this data shows that the minimum percentage coverage was greater in 2008 and2009 than in 2007.
Did you miss this?
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 405 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:34:19pm |
re: #403 JohninLondon
It was not many weeks ago. As you know full well.
Sure, Sunshine, you did not use the word racist per se. But your words meant just the same. It was a filthy smear, because in your book I was the wrong side of the debate. Like I said - I had never met such a smear over some years at LGF.
When I find the reference in the earlier thread, I will post it. Then people can judge for themselves whether or not you called me a racist.
Already done (look up^)...
| 406 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:36:01pm |
By the way, it's not "models" that show the increasingly rapid loss of sea ice at both poles -- it's actual physical measurements, both from satellites and from ground-based scientific teams.
This is a fact. The North Pole in particular is almost certainly going to become open ocean in the near future -- the amount of "old ice" has declined drastically.
| 407 |
zephirus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:37:19pm |
re: #351 Chip Designer
The global models have done very well at simulating past climate and of course we know what the truth is in that case.
You say that maybe they don't have sunspots in their models. I assume you mean do they take account of the 11-year solar cycle and other variations in solar shortwave output? You do realize that a climate modeler who left this obvious forcing mechanism out would be laughed out of the room?
What kind of papers are you reading? No credible climate modeler would ignore solar variance in their model! And yes if a model were to be run to simulate a 200,000 year period they would indeed put in the effect of orbital variations. Orbital variations with 40,000 year periods however would hardly be expected to contribute on a multi-decadal simulation.
You say "most models are kept secret". Not true. Model sharing goes on all the time.
Everyone I know in atmospheric science understands the notion of stability. I was discussing just the other day with my grad students. You don't know what you are talking about here.
And sparse data sets? The data sparsity /non-representativeness issues are discussed in most papers under the Data and Methods section. It's the norm; the paper wouldn't past review if is was an issue. Most people I know would reject it for publication.
I don't know what you reading or to whom you have been talking, but your comments clearly indicate that you know very little about the culture of atmospheric science research, how science works, and you know nothing about current research. We have progressed well beyond the 1950s.
Your points are ok for a non-expert - don't get me wrong. And they may convince a teabagger crowd, but to be so naive as to think that scientists haven't considered these things is laughable. And kind of insulting.
| 408 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:38:13pm |
re: #399 Charles
Not true. The Telegraph is anti-AGW -- extremely so.
James Delingpole is in the blogs section writing opinion pieces, the Telegraphs front page news items are lock step with all the other pro-AGW media. No, not at rabid as the Guardian or as obsessed as the BBC, but certainly not anti-AGW.
They have a Climate Change News section and print all the pro-AGW items everyone else does.
| 409 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:38:17pm |
re: #389 freetoken
If anyone is interested, you can download an RTF version of Limits To Growth here:
[Link: www.clubofrome.org...]
Thanks for the link. The Club of Rome had to revise their own models, going from 1000 equations to 200,000. Why? Because the 1000 equation model did not work.
That is all I am saying here. If your models aren't working correctly, change them until they match reality. But don't use them until they do match reality.
| 410 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:38:39pm |
re: #400 talon_262
Bagua, in the context of that thread, you were wrong to insinuate JiL was being racist with his remarks (though he was being obtuse and a bonehead, IMO)...man up and apologize.
Talua
I am sure you and I can agree on things - but we should all try to keep insults out of the arguments.
Thank you for finding the thread I was referring to. I had been trying to track back to it - how did you find it so quick ?
...
Bagua - if that is not a smear of racism, I'm a cabbage.
| 411 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:38:57pm |
Photographic evidence of the loss of sea ice -- kept classified by the Bush administration and recently released by the Obama administration:
[Link: trueslant.com...]
These pictures are really disturbing.
| 412 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:39:13pm |
re: #395 recusancy
Here's the current model. As you can see there are deviations from the trend, as there always will be on any long term model. But the trend is down. And that so far has been absolutely what has happened.
The text to go along with that graph:
One potential analog for the future evolution of the arctic ice pack comes from the work of Holland, Bitz and Tremblay (2006), based on the September extent from a seven-member ensemble of the Community Climate System Model Version 3 (CCSM3, Figure 3). If one examines the ensemble member shown in black in Figure 3, periods of stagnation in ice decline as long as ten years can be discerned between major ice loss events. Is 2009 simply part of such an extended pause, as it will take another near-perfect synchrony of summer weather conditions to provide another major drop in sea ice extent (Overland)? Or does the background trend in Figure 3 represent the global warming “forced” signal of an ever-increasing sea ice loss, plus natural variability (Bitz)? Or are these two interpretations of the same thing? The data from 2007-2009 suggest further lively discussions on the future of the Arctic at meetings during the coming year.
When looking at the collective output from a variety of runs of a physical model that includes chaotic elements (as well as truly random elements), it is good to keep in mind that we are looking at a representation of a probability, since the number of actors in the system are way too large to calculate each and every change at every moment in time.
Still, the point remains, when looking at climate projections we always are looking at a range of possibilities, and the range normally covers a large share (maybe even 95%) of the possible outcomes.
| 413 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:39:17pm |
re: #406 Charles
By the way, it's not "models" that show the increasingly rapid loss of sea ice at both poles -- it's actual physical measurements, both from satellites and from ground-based scientific teams.
This is a fact. The North Pole in particular is almost certainly going to become open ocean in the near future -- the amount of "old ice" has declined drastically.
Here's a sea ice comparison app/webpage:
[Link: igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu...]
It's set up to compare 11/2/79 and 11/1/09
| 414 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:39:33pm |
re: #406 Charles
By the way, it's not "models" that show the increasingly rapid loss of sea ice at both poles -- it's actual physical measurements, both from satellites and from ground-based scientific teams.
This is a fact. The North Pole in particular is almost certainly going to become open ocean in the near future -- the amount of "old ice" has declined drastically.
There is almost nothing left except "rotten" new thin ice. The North West passage is here. And the Arctic ocean is about to be destroyed.
| 415 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:41:50pm |
Bagua
I hope it was all in the heat of the moment. But a retraction would be nice.
Third time of asking.
| 416 |
recusancy Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:42:18pm |
re: #415 JohninLondon
Can you guys have your love spat somewhere else?
| 417 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:42:56pm |
re: #416 recusancy
Can you guys have your love spat somewhere else?
Yeah, apologize or do something. This is like a soap opera.
| 419 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:44:19pm |
| 420 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:45:23pm |
re: #410 JohninLondon
Talua
I am sure you and I can agree on things - but we should all try to keep insults out of the arguments.
Thank you for finding the thread I was referring to. I had been trying to track back to it - how did you find it so quick ?
...
Bagua - if that is not a smear of racism, I'm a cabbage.
IMO, you were being a bit obtuse in your arguments on that thread, but it didn't warrant Bagua's insinuations...nothing personal, but I do think you weren't being logical about the subject.
How I found the thread/posts? I clicked on your avatar (for you, you green football by your name), clicked the "Recent Comments" button on your infopage, and scrolled down the search results until I found your posts in that thread. Charles is real good to us, in that he puts a lot of neat tools at our disposal.
| 421 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:45:41pm |
| 422 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:46:57pm |
re: #403 JohninLondon
It was not many weeks ago. As you know full well.
Sure, Sunshine, you did not use the word racist per se. But your words meant just the same.
LOL, you admit I didn't call you a racist immediately after insisting again that I had? You are fun after all.
It was a filthy smear, because in your book I was the wrong side of the debate. Like I said - I had never met such a smear over some years at LGF.
When I find the reference in the earlier thread, I will post it. Then people can judge for themselves whether or not you called me a racist.
Oh, now we are back to "called me a racist." Accuracy is not a big issue with you I see.
I will save you the trouble John, I called you "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;" the definition of the word bigot. I think that fits your mind set very well, both then and now.
As I recall, the secondary definition fit as well.
| 423 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:47:08pm |
re: #416 recusancy
Can you guys have your love spat somewhere else?
He accused of racism here at LGF ? Why take the spat elsewhere ? Just slide past the posts if you wish, speedread a bit.
| 424 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:47:15pm |
re: #411 Charles
Photographic evidence of the loss of sea ice -- kept classified by the Bush administration and recently released by the Obama administration:
[Link: trueslant.com...]
These pictures are really disturbing.
Disturbing and shameful. That a president would have suppressed such information. Ironically if it wasn't released by the current administration it would have required a FOIA request.
Classified climate and geological information. That's probably a first.
| 425 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:49:17pm |
re: #422 Bagua
Oh, now we are back to "called me a racist." Accuracy is not a big issue with you I see.
I will save you the trouble John, I called you "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;" the definition of the word bigot. I think that fits your mind set very well, both then and now.
As I recall, the secondary definition fit as well.
Dude, you got busted (read my #400)...put a sock in it, why don't you?
| 426 |
Mark Pennington Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:50:38pm |
Those damn climate scientists, rolling in all that endorsement money that's rolling in, while the poor oil company executives are forced to sell pencils on the street corners to get by...
The idea that AGW is a money-making scam is just a lunatic conspiracy of epic proportions alongside WTC whacko's, moonlanding hoaxers and holocaust deniers.
Anyone seriously suggesting it automatically disqualifies themselves from taking part in the discussion or receiving any response other than laughing and pointing while making little twirly motions of the index finger beside your temple.
| 427 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:50:45pm |
re: #424 Gus 802
Disturbing and shameful. That a president would have suppressed such information. Ironically if it wasn't released by the current administration it would have required a FOIA request.
Classified climate and geological information. That's probably a first.
That's right. This is a REAL cover-up, and one big reason why the Bush administration has such a terrible reputation among scientists. This isn't the only time they covered up or classified evidence of global warming, either.
| 428 |
zephirus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:51:02pm |
re: #375 Chip Designer
re: #409 Chip Designer
That is all I am saying here. If your models aren't working correctly, change them until they match reality. But don't use them until they do match reality.
Models are changing ALL THE TIME to incorporate better representations of physical processes based on the data. At model bake-offs at conferences, if your model doesn't agree with the observations you will not be taken seriously and will not be allowed to play in future bake-offs unless you fix your model. That's the way the science game is played.
| 429 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:51:17pm |
re: #401 Dark_Falcon
Quite Concur.
I can carry obtuse and bonehead - true or false.
But racist was false. If it had not been so obnoxious, I would not have raised it again.
| 430 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:51:22pm |
re: #424 Gus 802
Disturbing and shameful. That a president would have suppressed such information. Ironically if it wasn't released by the current administration it would have required a FOIA request.
Classified climate and geological information. That's probably a first.
I don't think that this got to Presidential decision.
Probably in a lower echelon.
| 431 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:51:58pm |
re: #425 talon_262
Dude, you got busted (read my #400)...put a sock in it, why don't you?
Agreed. Don't be like Ludwig, Bagua. Prove you're the better man and step back. John isn't a bigot, not at all.
| 432 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:52:12pm |
re: #413 Gus 802
Here's a sea ice comparison app/webpage:
[Link: igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu...]
It's set up to compare 11/2/79 and 11/1/09
That is one of my favorite web sites. And if you compare Jan1, 1979 to Jan 1, 2009, they are nearly the same.
Discussions of a viable northwest passage generally omit that the Arctic ocean re-freezes in the winter. The blogs of the yachts that try the northwest passage tell stories of barely making it before the winter ice starts growing in September.
| 433 |
zephirus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:53:38pm |
re: #424 Gus 802
Disturbing and shameful. That a president would have suppressed such information. Ironically if it wasn't released by the current administration it would have required a FOIA request.
Classified climate and geological information. That's probably a first.
The Obama administration is now working with Russia to share long records of sea ice thickness from submarine instruments.
| 434 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:53:39pm |
re: #430 Bobibutu
I don't think that this got to Presidential decision.
Probably in a lower echelon.
I'd expect you're right. GWB was a hands-off administrator and he tended to let those he trusted run their own shops without jogging their elbows. He likely didn't even know about the photos.
| 435 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:54:55pm |
re: #432 Chip Designer
That is one of my favorite web sites. And if you compare Jan1, 1979 to Jan 1, 2009, they are nearly the same.
Discussions of a viable northwest passage generally omit that the Arctic ocean re-freezes in the winter. The blogs of the yachts that try the northwest passage tell stories of barely making it before the winter ice starts growing in September.
Why are you just ignoring the links that have been posted showing you that the ice caps have declined drastically, and continuing to push false claims?
| 436 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:56:52pm |
re: #431 Dark_Falcon
Agreed. Don't be like Ludwig, Bagua. Prove you're the better man and step back. John isn't a bigot, not at all.
Seconded, DF.
To Bagua, a friendly LGF tip: Don't be like Ludwig...admit when you're wrong, instead of digging in and being more strident about it.
| 437 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:58:27pm |
re: #432 Chip Designer
That is one of my favorite web sites. And if you compare Jan1, 1979 to Jan 1, 2009, they are nearly the same.
Discussions of a viable northwest passage generally omit that the Arctic ocean re-freezes in the winter. The blogs of the yachts that try the northwest passage tell stories of barely making it before the winter ice starts growing in September.
I still see differences and 2009 reflect less extent.
| 438 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:58:56pm |
re: #422 Bagua
Third time of asking and you still refuse to apologise for labelling me racist. Remarks made in the heat of the argument are OK, understandable maybe - but bad remarks should not be defended to the bitter end.
I hope you try being a touch more polite to people here at LGF. Civility costs nothing.
Cheers.
| 440 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:59:36pm |
re: #411 Charles
Photographic evidence of the loss of sea ice -- kept classified by the Bush administration and recently released by the Obama administration:
[Link: trueslant.com...]
These pictures are really disturbing.
But we do have the overall ice pictures of the polar icecaps. Every year, the ice pulls away from the shoreline. In some years, it is earlier than in others. 2007 was an early year. 2008 was a later year. There are web cams in Pt Barrow that show the ice on a daily basis. I do not see this as an anti-scientific bias on the part of Bush. They were always reluctant to release spy photographs.
| 441 |
zephirus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:00:50pm |
re: #432 Chip Designer
re: #432 Chip Designer
That is one of my favorite web sites. And if you compare Jan1, 1979 to Jan 1, 2009, they are nearly the same.
Discussions of a viable northwest passage generally omit that the Arctic ocean re-freezes in the winter. The blogs of the yachts that try the northwest passage tell stories of barely making it before the winter ice starts growing in September.
A single day could easily show more ice in 1979 compared to 2009. The overall trend is downward, nonetheless.
| 442 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:00:53pm |
re: #439 JRCMYP
Charles, why do you hate bats? Are you a bat hater?
I hate aluminum bats...a well-hit baseball should "crack" off a bat, not "ping".
///
| 443 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:01:07pm |
re: #440 Chip Designer
But we do have the overall ice pictures of the polar icecaps. Every year, the ice pulls away from the shoreline. In some years, it is earlier than in others. 2007 was an early year. 2008 was a later year. There are web cams in Pt Barrow that show the ice on a daily basis. I do not see this as an anti-scientific bias on the part of Bush. They were always reluctant to release spy photographs.
Are you seriously trying to claim that the Barrow picture doesn't show an astounding loss of sea ice?
| 444 |
freetoken Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:02:55pm |
re: #432 Chip Designer
The maximum area of winter freeze has gone down between 1979 and 2009, though of course by not as much as the minimum extent!
Even as the minimum continues to fall, the maximum area change will be smaller, as with the coming of winter there is no sunlight falling on a great portion of the Arctic ocean. Such refreezing though leads to thin ice which then melts again the next summer.
| 445 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:02:58pm |
It's bloody freezing here.
Maybe winter setting in ? Or is it climate change already ?
| 446 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:05:28pm |
re: #443 Charles
Are you seriously trying to claim that the Barrow picture doesn't show an astounding loss of sea ice?
And it's not just the coverage - but the thickness and longevity. The map is not the territory!
| 447 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:05:36pm |
Go here.
[Link: climate.nasa.gov...]
It's declining. Sorry but for crying out load this is from NASA. If you can't believe NASA on this I suggest you reassess why you're even considering giving an opinion.
| 448 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:06:12pm |
re: #440 Chip Designer
But we do have the overall ice pictures of the polar icecaps. Every year, the ice pulls away from the shoreline. In some years, it is earlier than in others. 2007 was an early year. 2008 was a later year. There are web cams in Pt Barrow that show the ice on a daily basis. I do not see this as an anti-scientific bias on the part of Bush. They were always reluctant to release spy photographs.
As for your claim that the ice was back again in 2008 -- no, it was not.
The photographs demonstrate starkly how global warming is changing the Arctic. More than a million square kilometres of sea ice - a record loss - were missing in the summer of 2007 compared with the previous year.
Nor has this loss shown any sign of recovery. Ice cover for 2008 was almost as bad as for 2007, and this year levels look equally sparse.
"These are one-metre resolution images, which give you a big picture of the summertime Arctic," said Thorsten Markus of Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre. "This is the main reason why we are so thrilled about it. One-metre resolution is the dimension that's been missing."
| 449 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:07:20pm |
| 452 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:08:46pm |
Are you going to tell me they're lying? That it's some kind of grand conspiracy?
| 453 |
Chip Designer Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:09:24pm |
re: #435 Charles
Why are you just ignoring the links that have been posted showing you that the ice caps have declined drastically, and continuing to push false claims?
I'm not ignoring them. I draw different conclusions from the data. A lot of ice melted in the summer of 2007. And by Jan 1, 2008, it had grown back to 2007 levels.
I am not as convinced about the new ice vs the old ice arguments. The new ice is 6 feet thick. Subsequent years growth doesn't add that much more, since the ice acts as an insulator over the sea water.
| 454 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:09:30pm |
href="/showc/425/7903773">#425 talon_262
Dude, you got busted (read my #400)...put a sock in it, why don't you?
Dude? Racist and bigot are different words. John's writings in that thread most certainly showed bigotry which I clearly defined.
I defined my usage again the next time he whined about it, and do again now. Look it up in the dictionary.
re: #431 Dark_Falcon
Agreed. Don't be like Ludwig, Bagua. Prove you're the better man and step back. John isn't a bigot, not at all.
As to what I did say, bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
That most certainly applied to John's arguments demonising ACORN in that thread.
| 455 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:11:25pm |
re: #453 Chip Designer
I'm not ignoring them. I draw different conclusions from the data. A lot of ice melted in the summer of 2007. And by Jan 1, 2008, it had grown back to 2007 levels.
That is just absolutely NOT true.
I am not as convinced about the new ice vs the old ice arguments. The new ice is 6 feet thick. Subsequent years growth doesn't add that much more, since the ice acts as an insulator over the sea water.
And yet, scientists around the world who have studied the collected measurements ARE convinced. We should ignore them and believe you ... why, exactly?
| 456 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:12:33pm |
re: #450 Gus 802
TERRA EROS
[Link: terra.nasa.gov...]
Way cool - I have been there - multiple times. One of the most pristine salmon runs anywhere. If it's ever offered in your grocery store - get some - none better. Copper River Salmon - and the Canadians know how to smoke it to perfection.
| 457 |
enigma3535 Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:12:53pm |
re: #351 Chip Designer
IMHO, none of all that matters ... models? statistics? whatever.
There are only 2 things I am 100% certain about [my daughters' love may be a 3rd] … no human constructed religion approximates the reality of the multi-verse; within the next hundred years or so, sea levels will rise precipitously, effectively destabilizing humanity as we know it.
| 458 |
zephirus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:13:36pm |
re: #453 Chip Designer
Ice thickness can increase from snowfall. Snow acts an insulator that keeps the ice from melting.
| 459 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:15:35pm |
re: #456 Bobibutu
Way cool - I have been there - multiple times. One of the most pristine salmon runs anywhere. If it's ever offered in your grocery store - get some - none better. Copper River Salmon - and the Canadians know how to smoke it to perfection.
Love salmon. Thanks. Sure is big country up there.
| 460 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:16:02pm |
re: #457 enigma3535
IMHO, none of all that matters ... models? statistics? whatever.
There are only 2 things I am 100% certain about [my daughters' love may be a 3rd] … no human constructed religion approximates the reality of the multi-verse; within the next hundred years or so, sea levels will rise precipitously, effectively destabilizing humanity as we know it.
Roger - and I concur on the third. ;-)
| 461 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:16:05pm |
The last I heard on the CRU stuff was that the soi-disant University of East Anglia might be asking Martin Rees, at the FRS, to adjudicate.
That's the Rees who is a strong AGW advocate.
Toujours l'impartialite !
| 462 |
zephirus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:16:36pm |
Time for a nerdy calculus joke:
Why did the mathemetician name his dog Cauchy?
Because he left a residue at every pole.
| 463 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:18:57pm |
re: #454 Bagua
href="/showc/425/7903773">#425 talon_262
As to what I did say, bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.That most certainly applied to John's arguments demonising ACORN in that thread.
The problem is that in common usage bigot and racist are very closely related. Also, you should be more forgiving when it comes to someone attacking ACORN. ACORN is atruly rotten organization, and the scale of its leftism and corruption can enrage conservatives and cause them to overreact. By all means criticize John if he's wrong, but "bigot" is a loaded term and it poisons the discussion.
| 464 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:19:47pm |
re: #459 Gus 802
Love salmon. Thanks. Sure is big country up there.
Moi gawd - traveled it for 5 years - didn't scratch the surface. Go when you can - knocks yer socks off. As one person said - if you wanted to steal Switzerland - you would hide it in Alaska.
| 465 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:20:51pm |
re: #454 Bagua
href="/showc/425/7903773">#425 talon_262
As to what I did say, bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.That most certainly applied to John's arguments demonising ACORN in that thread.
Did you not read your own words in the post above where I quoted you? You cast racial aspersions on JiL for his stance towards ACORN...I quote you again:
Point 4 – […] Looks like guilt to me […]
Be succinct, that whole paragraph expands on the five words I excerpted.
OK, so it all looks guilty to you therefore it must be, "let’s throw them all in jail, who needs actual charges and a trial when we are going on our hunches, after all, they're Blacks right, they must be guilty." That seems to sum up your view.
Those were *your* words, not JiL's...I didn't see him saying anything remotely racial in that thread, but you insinuated he had racial reason for his stance. Do you see what I'm saying now?
/don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining...
| 466 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:22:01pm |
Repost
Climate change and behavior change continues to be a leadership challenge
Commentary by Lt. Col. Kirk Rowe, Clinical Neuropsychologist
96th Medical Group
11/9/2009 - EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. --
As a clinical neuropsychologist who has studied the intricacies of how the human brain is wired for a living for the last 16 years, it still remains fascinating to observe why change is so hard to accept, especially when facts and negative consequences are within clear view. The negative effects of driving under the influence of alcohol, smoking, and obesity are abundantly clear; however, many people continue to engage in these behaviors.A similar issue is America's enormous energy appetite that continues to feed the insidious encroachment of climate change. With world leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December to make decisions about what to do about human influenced climate change, the fact that many people don't believe that the climate is changing due to human activities is a huge hurdle in moving forward with action. To move away from fossil fuels toward renewable and alternative resources may appear to be a daunting task because it requires people to change their mind. However, often times in the change process, the most difficult step is the realization that change is needed.
SNIP
Pooling together our nation's resources to help the environment and America's economy makes a better solution. At work in your organizations, the same holds true - gathering the resources of your team and developing a cohesive strategy makes a more effective and successful mission.
If we accept the data and follow the lead of the rest of the world, the solutions will come. There are many resources online. For example, review the CNA report at [Link: www.cna.org...] For more information about what you can do on an individual level to address the changing climate and curb your energy use, please visit the Department of Energy's website at [Link: www.energy.gov...]
| 467 |
zephirus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:23:27pm |
re: #412 freetoken
When looking at the collective output from a variety of runs of a physical model that includes chaotic elements (as well as truly random elements), it is good to keep in mind that we are looking at a representation of a probability, since the number of actors in the system are way too large to calculate each and every change at every moment in time.
Still, the point remains, when looking at climate projections we always are looking at a range of possibilities, and the range normally covers a large share (maybe even 95%) of the possible outcomes.
And the range of input scenarios must take into account economic, technological and sometimes political projections in order to determine the range of CO2 and aerosol forcings that must be included. This of course leads to a large range of predictions.
| 468 |
OneMonkeysUncle Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:24:13pm |
Just because I thought it was an excellent response, here's a post in its entirety from down near the end of the cat-calling comments thread on the Charles' original link:
Douglas Watts%P% 11.26.09 @ 2:05AM
It is axiomatic that you cannot rely upon the exact same temperature dataset that you declare is fraudulent as proof that the planet is cooling.
Or to put it as a theorem:
1. The right wing has been swearing up and down for the past 10 years that all of the data shows the planet is cooling.
2. The right wing is now swearing up and down that a vast worldwide conspiracy of scientists have deliberately falsified this same set data to show planet is warming.
If no. 1 is true, then no. 2 cannot be true.
If no. 2 is true, then no. 1 cannot be true.Which is it?
| 469 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:24:14pm |
re: #454 Bagua
href="/showc/425/7903773">#425 talon_262
As to what I did say, bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.That most certainly applied to John's arguments demonising ACORN in that thread.
Oh for goodness sake !
I called ACORN out for voter-registration fraud, for the opacity of its hugely complex financial structure, and for the fraud that was committed by the brother (white) of the founder (white).
None of that was racist. But you implied I was being racist. As has been pointed out in the thread above.
As I said before - try to be more careful in making personal remarks. I am not a bigot - and I most certainly am not a racist, whatever cheap insults you choose to fling about.
I don't even read the Daily Mail or the Sun. Or watch Sky (Murdoch) News.
| 470 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:29:03pm |
re: #468 OneMonkeysUncle
Just because I thought it was an excellent response, here's a post in its entirety from down near the end of the cat-calling comments thread on the Charles' original link:
They are both right and wrong.
| 471 |
Mich-again Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:29:29pm |
re: #466 Gus 802
For more information about what you can do on an individual level to address the changing climate and curb your energy use, please visit the Department of Energy's website
The easiest best way to reduce our nation's carbon footprint is to get the municipal road crews in all the cities across the country to time the stoplights at the major intersections to keep traffic moving instead of stopping and starting for all the red lights. We could also change schools to a 4 day schedule to save 20% on the fuel for buses, cut the post office to from 6 to 4 day delivery schedule, and figure out how to perform major highway construction projects without creating mile long traffic backups. Those things would be enough to create a glut in the oil supply as well and would help the economy tremendously.
The best way to reduce consumption is to reduce waste.
| 472 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:31:16pm |
Bagua
I suggest we drop all this. Life's too short.
Next time - let's stick to the arguments on their merits ?
OK ?
| 473 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:32:41pm |
re: #471 Mich-again
The easiest best way to reduce our nation's carbon footprint is to get the municipal road crews in all the cities across the country to time the stoplights at the major intersections to keep traffic moving instead of stopping and starting for all the red lights. We could also change schools to a 4 day schedule to save 20% on the fuel for buses, cut the post office to from 6 to 4 day delivery schedule, and figure out how to perform major highway construction projects without creating mile long traffic backups. Those things would be enough to create a glut in the oil supply as well and would help the economy tremendously.
The best way to reduce consumption is to reduce waste.
Right. But, if you reduce the school week to 4 days you add 1 day of required day care. Probably no net gain since then the parents would have to drive the child to day care and then lose money.
| 474 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:34:10pm |
re: #473 Gus 802
Just the one thing I noticed. Everything else looks A-OK.
| 475 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:36:19pm |
re: #472 JohninLondon
Bagua
I suggest we drop all this. Life's too short.
Next time - let's stick to the arguments on their merits ?
OK ?
I hope Bagua apologizes for the remark or at least lets the matter drop, but it seems like he's doing a Ludwig.
/stubborn gits, the both of them...
| 476 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:39:25pm |
re: #475 talon_262
I hope Bagua apologizes for the remark or at least lets the matter drop, but it seems like he's doing a Ludwig.
/stubborn gits, the both of them...
Who's Ludwig ?
re Bagua. obviously I won't get an apology, but it is best to let the matter rest.
| 477 |
Mich-again Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:41:19pm |
re: #474 Gus 802
Good point that moving schools to a 4 day week would cause some parents a hardship. But then, schools aren't supposed to be a babysitting service. And around here, the schools already have all sorts of random days off and half-days anyways, not to mention the occasional snow day, which kids tend to hope for all winter long. We already deal with those events. People would figure out how to deal with 4 day school weeks.
| 478 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:41:54pm |
re: #472 JohninLondon
Bagua
I suggest we drop all this. Life's too short.
Next time - let's stick to the arguments on their merits ?
OK ?
John, as this is still on the table so many threads later, may I suggest you simple ask me to retract calling you a bigot, and perhaps say that you found it hurtful rather than insist I said something different?
| 479 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:42:55pm |
Funny.
Some weirdo on Youtube trying to explain the CRU source code. The freak has a site called Fascist Soup. He also a video called Goldman Sachs Fascism.
After seeing Monckton on Prison Planet and the other conspiracy theories I'd have to conclude that the anti-AGW side is full of truther kooks.
| 480 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:43:26pm |
re: #476 JohninLondon
Who's Ludwig ?
re Bagua. obviously I won't get an apology, but it is best to let the matter rest.
Bagua, I'm sure, knows they screwed up. But, if they don't have the integrity to admit it and apologize, then I'm done with them and to the "perm-ignore" column they go.
| 481 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:44:29pm |
re: #478 Bagua
John, as this is still on the table so many threads later, may I suggest you simple ask me to retract calling you a bigot, and perhaps say that you found it hurtful rather than insist I said something different?
Exactly what I thought you'd do...entrench.
GAZE...
| 482 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:44:46pm |
re: #479 Gus 802
Woot! Same guy links to RP4409. That was the same site as the gun guy that showed near Obama in Arizona.
| 483 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:45:27pm |
re: #478 Bagua
John, as this is still on the table so many threads later, may I suggest you simple ask me to retract calling you a bigot, and perhaps say that you found it hurtful rather than insist I said something different?
That's fine by me, thanks.
| 484 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:45:41pm |
Arlo Guthrie/Motorcycle Song
| 485 |
Fenway_Nation Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:48:01pm |
With Chairman Hopenchange coming to town shortly, apparently Copenhagen has now become Hopenhagen .
/Jesus one-legged Christ in a Bradley 25mm Turret, I wish I was making this shit up
| 486 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:48:56pm |
re: #483 JohninLondon
That's fine by me, thanks.
Great, in that case if I retract the use of the word bigot.
| 487 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:49:39pm |
re: #485 Fenway_Nation
With Chairman Hopenchange coming to town shortly, apparently Copenhagen has now become Hopenhagen .
/Jesus one-legged Christ in a Bradley 25mm Turret, I wish I was making this shit up
Hey, at least some Europeans still treat President Obama like the Second Coming of Christ!
///uggghhh
| 488 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:50:17pm |
re: #485 Fenway_Nation
With Chairman Hopenchange coming to town shortly, apparently Copenhagen has now become Hopenhagen .
/Jesus one-legged Christ in a Bradley 25mm Turret, I wish I was making this shit up
Well, looks cooler than Focus on the Family and James Dobson and Pat Buchanan and Nick Griffin and Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann and...
Never mind.
| 489 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:51:27pm |
re: #476 JohninLondon
Who's Ludwig ?
re Bagua. obviously I won't get an apology, but it is best to let the matter rest.
One of this board's posters use3s LudwigvonQuixote as his nic. About a week ago we had three threads that turned into nasty battle between him and several conservative posters over the idea of trying Khalid Sheik Mohammad in civilian court. He said (in so many words) that those who favored military tribunals were ignoring basic American values and were thinking in way typical of North Korea. After a very nasty third fight, Ludwig has not been seen here since.
| 491 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:54:31pm |
re: #485 Fenway_Nation
With Chairman Hopenchange coming to town shortly, apparently Copenhagen has now become Hopenhagen .
/Jesus one-legged Christ in a Bradley 25mm Turret, I wish I was making this shit up
They actually had that commercial on TV here in Chicago earlier tonight (technically last night). I didn't see the Hopenhagen name then and I'm glad I didn't: I was at work when I saw it and I've got a severe allergy to HopeyChange.
| 492 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:54:59pm |
| 493 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:55:24pm |
re: #490 Sharmuta
O great mystery,
and wonderful sacrament,
that animals should see the new-born Lord,
lying in a manger!
Blessed is the Virgin whose womb
was worthy to bear
Christ the Lord.
Alleluia!
| 494 |
lostlakehiker Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:55:46pm |
re: #225 Charles
The fool who wrote that "paper" is actually denying that the greenhouse effect exists at all.
Are you aware of how ridiculous that is? Do you realize that the greenhouse effect has been documented and proven science for decades?
Good freaking grief.
The paper itself is a marvel of straight-A illiteracy. Every sentence is logical. Every equation is properly stated. But the work gets everything wrong nonetheless. It is, for instance, NOT TRUE that Newton's heat conduction equation involves higher-order derivatives.
Every higher-order conclusion in the paper is waaay off.
| 495 |
Ben G. Hazi Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:56:01pm |
| 496 |
Sharmuta Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:56:32pm |
re: #493 Killgore Trout
I sang that song in high school- it was one of my favorites. Merry Christmas, KT.
| 497 |
lostlakehiker Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:57:37pm |
re: #471 Mich-again
The easiest best way to reduce our nation's carbon footprint is to get the municipal road crews in all the cities across the country to time the stoplights at the major intersections to keep traffic moving instead of stopping and starting for all the red lights. We could also change schools to a 4 day schedule to save 20% on the fuel for buses, cut the post office to from 6 to 4 day delivery schedule, and figure out how to perform major highway construction projects without creating mile long traffic backups. Those things would be enough to create a glut in the oil supply as well and would help the economy tremendously.
The best way to reduce consumption is to reduce waste.
All that is nice I suppose, but it doesn't suffice. Not remotely. We need major new sources of energy. We cannot scrimp and save our way out of this.
| 498 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:57:41pm |
re: #486 Bagua
Great, in that case if I retract the use of the word bigot.
Thank you, Bagua. You've just shown your best colors and reaffirmed than you're one of our best posters. I'm glad to know you.
| 499 |
Digital Display Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:58:43pm |
re: #496 Sharmuta
I sang that song in high school- it was one of my favorites. Merry Christmas, KT.
My favorite song...
i heard there was a secret chord
that david played and it pleased the lord
but you don't really care for music, do you
well it goes like this the fourth, the fifth
the minor fall and the major lift
the baffled king composing hallelujah
hallelujah...
well your faith was strong but you needed proof
you saw her bathing on the roof
her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
she tied you to her kitchen chair
she broke your throne and she cut your hair
and from your lips she drew the hallelujah
hallelujah...
baby i've been here before
i've seen this room and i've walked this floor
i used to live alone before i knew you
i've seen your flag on the marble arch
but love is not a victory march
it's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah
hallelujah...
well there was a time when you let me know
what's really going on below
but now you never show that to me do you
but remember when i moved in you
and the holy dove was moving too
and every breath we drew was hallelujah
well, maybe there's a god above
but all i've ever learned from love
was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you
it's not a cry that you hear at night
it's not somebody who's seen the light
it's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah
hallelujah...
| 500 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:59:39pm |
re: #485 Fenway_Nation
With Chairman Hopenchange coming to town shortly, apparently Copenhagen has now become Hopenhagen .
/Jesus one-legged Christ in a Bradley 25mm Turret, I wish I was making this shit up
I understand that The One will not be in Copenhagen for the 3 or 4 days of substantive talks between several dozen national leaders. He puts in a photo-op several days before, on his way to Oslo to collect the Nobel Prize he worked so hard for in the fortnight before he was nominated.
It happens I will be taking one of my granddaughters on a day trip to Oslo a couple of days later, for some Christmas shopping. Norway always donates the huge Christmas tree for Trafalgar Square, goes back to WW2.
I do hope they have calmed down by then, I can't stand too much excitement at my age.
/damn, we should have booked for 10 December, to see Obama Borealis
| 501 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:59:42pm |
re: #496 Sharmuta
Cheers! I love the uber-old school tunes.
| 502 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 10:59:44pm |
Ludwig will be back. He's just busy deleting emails and cleaning up his code comments like everybody else.
| 503 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:00:13pm |
re: #502 Bagua
Ludwig will be back. He's just busy deleting emails and cleaning up his code comments like everybody else.
=)
| 504 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:01:49pm |
Kyrie, Missa L'homme armé - Johannes Ockeghem
| 505 |
Fenway_Nation Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:02:48pm |
re: #491 Dark_Falcon
They actually had that commercial on TV here in Chicago earlier tonight (technically last night). I didn't see the Hopenhagen name then and I'm glad I didn't: I was at work when I saw it and I've got a severe allergy to HopeyChange.
I heard about it on my XM radio during one of the earlier football games today. At first I thought it was brilliant Scrappleface-caliber satire, but after a moment, I realized...'Oh shit- they're serious.'
/Don't worry folks- the fucking UN is gonna save the world! Just like they saved all those Bosnian Muslims from the Serbs or the Tutsis from the Hutus in Rwanda! Or even the bang-up job they did of saving little Congolese girls from being molested by UN Peacekeepers!
| 507 |
Dark_Falcon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:05:34pm |
re: #500 JohninLondon
I understand that The One will not be in Copenhagen for the 3 or 4 days of substantive talks between several dozen national leaders. He puts in a photo-op several days before, on his way to Oslo to collect the Nobel Prize he worked so hard for in the fortnight before he was nominated.
It happens I will be taking one of my granddaughters on a day trip to Oslo a couple of days later, for some Christmas shopping. Norway always donates the huge Christmas tree for Trafalgar Square, goes back to WW2.
I do hope they have calmed down by then, I can't stand too much excitement at my age.
/damn, we should have booked for 10 December, to see Obama Borealis
All Obama does is speeches and photo ops. Substantive negotiations are not his forte. During those sorts of talks you have to be able to share the spotlight and that is at odds with the way Obama likes to keep the focus All About Obama.
| 508 |
Fenway_Nation Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:06:57pm |
re: #500 JohninLondon
The capital of my home state gets their Christmas tree from Nova Scotia.
| 509 |
Bob Dillon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:08:39pm |
re: #500 JohninLondon
I understand that The One will not be in Copenhagen for the 3 or 4 days of substantive talks between several dozen national leaders. He puts in a photo-op several days before, on his way to Oslo to collect the Nobel Prize he worked so hard for in the fortnight before he was nominated.
It happens I will be taking one of my granddaughters on a day trip to Oslo a couple of days later, for some Christmas shopping. Norway always donates the huge Christmas tree for Trafalgar Square, goes back to WW2.
I do hope they have calmed down by then, I can't stand too much excitement at my age.
/damn, we should have booked for 10 December, to see Obama Borealis
The best place to see that is: [Link: www.chenahotsprings.com...]
| 510 |
borgcube Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:08:52pm |
re: #485 Fenway_Nation
/Jesus one-legged Christ in a Bradley 25mm Turret, I wish I was making this shit up
That's the funniest thing I've ever seen in here.
| 511 |
abolitionist Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:10:13pm |
re: #422 Bagua
[snip]
Oh, now we are back to "called me a racist." Accuracy is not a big issue with you I see.I will save you the trouble John, I called you "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;" the definition of the word bigot. I think that fits your mind set very well, both then and now.
As I recall, the secondary definition fit as well.
So you smeared JohninLondon as a bigot in that thread, not racist. You smeared me similarly, in a later thread.
You took offense at my suggestion that you do some research on ACORN before continuing to defend it, maintaining that you already "knew all about" ACORN. You were repeatedly chastising JohninLondon for the points he listed against ACORN, "without proof" (your words), yet you had stated that you were loathe to go on any "wild goose chases" to follow any links that might be posted in the way of such proof. That, and yet another bigot smear, was what prompted my initial post to you.
| 512 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:10:54pm |
re: #504 Killgore Trout
I'd forgotten how cool the original lyrics were: L'homme armé
The man, the man, the armed man,
The armed man
The armed man should be feared, should be feared.
Everywhere it has been proclaimed
That each man shall arm himself
With a coat of iron mail.
| 514 |
Mich-again Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:11:59pm |
re: #497 lostlakehiker
Not true, at least as far as the part about creating a glut in the oil supply. We don't need to make a huge dent in consumption, just a few percent will do.
| 515 |
abolitionist Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:13:44pm |
| 517 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:15:11pm |
re: #505 Fenway_Nation
I heard about it on my XM radio during one of the earlier football games today. At first I thought it was brilliant Scrappleface-caliber satire, but after a moment, I realized...'Oh shit- they're serious.'
/Don't worry folks- the fucking UN is gonna save the world! Just like they saved all those Bosnian Muslims from the Serbs or the Tutsis from the Hutus in Rwanda! Or even the bang-up job they did of saving little Congolese girls from being molested by UN Peacekeepers!
Yeah, well. The UN is a creation of the United States. It's survived all of the previous administrations including Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Haven't seen them telling me what to do with my life despite what Alex Jones keeps screaming about either. There must by a reason why we keep them around.
| 518 |
Bagua Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:16:08pm |
re: #511 abolitionist
Ooops... I forgot about the tag team. Ok, ok I retract the word bigot when used your case as well even as a pun.
Now here's a big hug for {everyone}
| 519 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:18:03pm |
re: #517 Gus 802
Quote: "There must by a reason why we keep them around."
The only one I can think of, is we can't figure out how to get RID of them.
| 520 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:19:33pm |
re: #504 Killgore Trout
Kyrie, Missa L'homme armé - Johannes Ockeghem
[Video]
I love the semi-amateur performances for some reason.
The best a capella I have seen recently was some Aussies singing the Fiji farewell song, Isa Lei. I always weep a bit when I leave a small Fijian island, the locals line up on the shore to sing Isa Lei as your boat pulls away.
A bit like "Now is the hour" - the Maori farewell song.
| 521 |
abolitionist Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:21:40pm |
re: #518 Bagua
Ooops... I forgot about the tag team. Ok, ok I retract the word bigot when used your case as well even as a pun.
Now here's a big hug for {everyone}
Appreciate the retraction.
| 522 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:23:04pm |
re: #520 JohninLondon
You should post that upthread.
I bet KT'd like it!
| 523 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:27:58pm |
re: #519 Floral Giraffe
Quote: "There must by a reason why we keep them around."
The only one I can think of, is we can't figure out how to get RID of them.
It would be either too easy or too hard. The reality is that they've become an integral part of the American power elite whether we like it or not. No, I'm not talking about a conspiracy theory here. It's just like when you go to a corporate party and you meet all types of people it makes your head spin.
Republicans and Democrats alike. It's where many sons and daughters go. The UN is almost like Boy Scout Camp for the Princeton elite. It's defective in many if not most respects but what's the alternative? Kicking them out and then what? I don't know but even though I find them displeasurable I find the whole anti-UN thing rather Paulian.
Then I ask why stop there? There are a whole lot of other multi-national groups that we belong to that are just as defective. Are we going to take the road to isolationism and replace it with what?
| 524 |
Gus Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:30:47pm |
| 525 |
JohninLondon Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:33:23pm |
re: #522 Floral Giraffe
You should post that upthread.
I bet KT'd like it!
"Now is the Hour" is an old Bing classic, also sung by Vera Lynn, the UK "Forces Favourite" who recently had a No 1 in the UK at age 85 or so with "There'll be Bluebirds over the Chite Cliffs of Dover"
You can't eat the old ones !!!
A recent version of the Maori farewell song is by Hayley Westenra :
| 526 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:35:34pm |
re: #523 Gus 802
I agree, we have to have a forum to see what other countries agendas are. I'm just offended at how much money we put into the UN. Yes, maybe that's a bit Paulian, but I did enjoy John Bolton's UN book too.
| 527 |
Neutral President Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:41:20pm |
re: #526 Floral Giraffe
I agree, we have to have a forum to see what other countries agendas are. I'm just offended at how much money we put into the UN. Yes, maybe that's a bit Paulian, but I did enjoy John Bolton's UN book too.
He's not 100% wrong on everything. There's the stopped clock syndrome working for him among other things. There are a number of issues where the kooks are in the right ballpark but they go way too far, concentrate on the wrong part, or simply propose asinine solutions to problems they correctly identify.
| 528 |
Dancing along the light of day Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:51:08pm |
re: #527 ArchangelMichael
Good to "see" you, ArchangelMichael!
We haven't had a nice Troll to whack about, for a while.
Goodnight, all.
| 529 |
trplaysfz Fri, Nov 27, 2009 11:57:07pm |
re: #25 Wind Rider
Seems like there might be a crack in the monolith...
"It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer.
(reported by Kimberley Strassel - WSJ 11/27/09)
| 530 |
JohninLondon Sat, Nov 28, 2009 12:08:07am |
Here's some Fijians singing their farewell song, Isa Lei. This groupis from a small resort in the string-of-pearls Ysaswa islands - near the original Blue Lagoon.
I have a theory that it was Welsh missionaries that took chorals to them. Just a small group can make beautiful harmonies. A Sunday church service in Polynesia needs no organ or piano, just one person tapping the start-rhythm and off they go.
And maybe the Welsh influence explains why Fiji are unstoppable at Seven-a-Side rugby, sheer power and speed.
| 531 |
Neutral President Sat, Nov 28, 2009 12:08:19am |
re: #528 Floral Giraffe
Good to "see" you, ArchangelMichael!
We haven't had a nice Troll to whack about, for a while.Goodnight, all.
I gave one a Red Forman line today, but I don't think Stinky actually booted him in the ass. I think that was in this thread too... Yep #158.
| 532 |
armylaw Sat, Nov 28, 2009 5:52:44am |
re: #38 Bagua
Many bogus suits are thrown out of courts every day of the week. This intent to sue filed against NASA is asking for "internal discussions" which seems petty and irrelevant as NASA has released the data itself and made correction where appropriate.
I expect this to be thrown out of court based upon its content.
Internal discussions are exempt from release under FOIA as (b)(5) material.
| 533 |
armylaw Sat, Nov 28, 2009 5:53:48am |
re: #45 midow
That money comes out of the legal department budget; it's already obligated whether it goes to this case or some other. It's money spent in any case.
Unless they hire outside counsel (unlikely).
| 534 |
ulmsey123 Sat, Nov 28, 2009 6:30:14am |
NASA is a massive bloated government bureaucracy. Must trust them. Must trust them. Must trust them.
| 536 |
philosophus invidius Sat, Nov 28, 2009 7:17:56am |
re: #529 trplaysfz
Seems like there might be a crack in the monolith...
"It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer.
(reported by Kimberley Strassel - WSJ 11/27/09)
I suggest you read the whole article rather than the cherry-picked WSJ quote:
[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]
To say that the emails are a "major blow" is obviously not to say that they throw any doubt on the science involved. He means that it is a big problem since people will think that it lends credence to the deniers. And he also suggests that these particular scientists may have said some questionable things, but that that is understandable (even if not excusable) given the pressure from the deniers.
| 537 |
joest1973 Sat, Nov 28, 2009 7:40:40am |
re: #536 philosophus invidius
I suggest you read the whole article rather than the cherry-picked WSJ quote:
[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]
To say that the emails are a "major blow" is obviously not to say that they throw any doubt on the science involved. He means that it is a big problem since people will think that it lends credence to the deniers. And he also suggests that these particular scientists may have said some questionable things, but that that is understandable (even if not excusable) given the pressure from the deniers.
Oh no! A little pressure from the so called deniers? Seems to me that the
real "deniers" are the people that don't see that something is fishy here with the global warming movement.
| 538 |
philosophus invidius Sat, Nov 28, 2009 7:41:50am |
Monbiot:
But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence
| 539 |
philosophus invidius Sat, Nov 28, 2009 7:46:09am |
re: #537 joest1973
Oh no! A little pressure from the so called deniers? Seems to me that the
real "deniers" are the people that don't see that something is fishy here with the global warming movement.
Why don't you read what the "pressure" is that Monbiot is talking about?
It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.
For some further background, I recommend:
[Link: www.csicop.org...]
| 540 |
captdiggs Sat, Nov 28, 2009 7:49:13am |
re: #424 Gus 802
Disturbing and shameful. That a president would have suppressed such information. Ironically if it wasn't released by the current administration it would have required a FOIA request.
Classified climate and geological information. That's probably a first.
You're kidding, right?
Did you notice that the Bush administration had already released the photos to scientists through the Medea program ( per the source Reuters article)?
The only difference here was the declassification for public publication. The scientists already had them.
Classification could have been for any number of reasons including an improvement in the photo technology.
| 541 |
Ramona Sat, Nov 28, 2009 7:54:31am |
re: #30 Charles
And there's no doubt in my mind that this is a completely bogus lawsuit, filed by people who are in the pocket of the energy industry.
filed by the people who hve their hands in the pockets of the energy industry.
| 542 |
Ramona Sat, Nov 28, 2009 8:01:18am |
| 543 |
Ramona Sat, Nov 28, 2009 8:08:12am |
re: #375 Chip Designer
Instead, the minimum ice coverage increased.
On what planet?
"The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history." [[Link: www.worldclimatereport.com...]
| 544 |
philosophus invidius Sat, Nov 28, 2009 8:17:24am |
re: #543 Ramona
But the the authors state clearly that this is an anomoly related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases.
| 545 |
joest1973 Sat, Nov 28, 2009 10:04:00am |
re: #541 Ramona
filed by the people who hve their hands in the pockets of the energy industry.
Who GE?
| 546 |
captdiggs Sat, Nov 28, 2009 10:52:01am |
Debate by downding ?
No factual counter argument as to my refutation of the great Bush conspiracy to suppress those photos, even though they were already distributed to scientists?
People should be reasonable enough to admit a rush into a demonstrably false conspiracy theory.
But that's just my opinion.
| 547 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 11:06:37am |
re: #546 captdiggs
Debate by downding ?
No factual counter argument as to my refutation of the great Bush conspiracy to suppress those photos, even though they were already distributed to scientists?
Because you're wrong, again. The photographs were classified and kept secret from the public -- that's a fact.
U.S. releases unclassified spy images of Arctic ice:
The images were derived from classified images made as part of the Medea program, which lets scientists request spy pictures from environmentally sensitive locations around the globe.
Medea scientists asked for intelligence images of Arctic sea ice during the summer melting season, but these were considered unsuitable for public release. Images suitable for release were made, but were not made public until now.
There's no way to spin this to make it not disgraceful, sorry.
| 548 |
captdiggs Sat, Nov 28, 2009 12:05:44pm |
re: #547 Charles
"Last week the US government released more than a thousand intelligence images of Arctic ice that have been used to help scientists study the impact of climate change. The images were taken by spy satellites, as part of the Medea program, which lets scientists request spy pictures from environmentally sensitive locations around the world. After they were taken, the Bush Administration released the photographs to the scientists but deemed them "unsuitable for public release."
[Link: www.universetoday.com...]
[Link: trueslant.com...]
One more time:
"After they were taken, the Bush Administration released the photographs to the scientists"
Sorry, I'm not buying the conspiracy theory.
| 549 |
Neonentity Sat, Nov 28, 2009 12:25:22pm |
re: #9 midow
Seems straightforward to me: a request was made under FOIA, they should respond with the requested information or a detailed response why the information can't be provided. If they are ignoring the request, as the article implies, they are violating the law. It really doesn't matter what the subject matter requested is, a government agency is obligated to provide it.
Indeed. A fishing expedition it may be, but there is enough fishiness to warrant it.
| 550 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 12:32:03pm |
re: #548 captdiggs
"Last week the US government released more than a thousand intelligence images of Arctic ice that have been used to help scientists study the impact of climate change. The images were taken by spy satellites, as part of the Medea program, which lets scientists request spy pictures from environmentally sensitive locations around the world. After they were taken, the Bush Administration released the photographs to the scientists but deemed them "unsuitable for public release."
[Link: www.universetoday.com...]
[Link: trueslant.com...]One more time:
"After they were taken, the Bush Administration released the photographs to the scientists"
Sorry, I'm not buying the conspiracy theory.
What a stupid comment. There's no "conspiracy theory." The Bush administration kept the photos classified and did not release them to the public. This is something known as a "fact."
| 551 |
docrambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 12:50:06pm |
Turning Global Warming into a religion is intellectually damning-whether you're conservative or liberal--tree hugger or tree cutter. The argument that "all", "the majority", "the preponderance" of scientists believe in Global Warming and its detrimental effects is not correct. Looking at isolated pictures of ice activity does not give you the whole picture; i.e. the vast disappearance of the ice shelf on one side of Antarctica was balanced by the appearance of greater ice activity on the other side. Ice activity is influenced by more than just temperature--wind, current, salinity, etc. affect formation. Depth of ice formation is dependant on absolute nadirs in temperature, but again average temperatures being lower than normal can still lead to melting, if the extremes measured vary in their values. So, can we have global cooling, yet have ice melt? Yes we can. To lay the blame on CO2 levels is so absurd that it takes all question of science out of the argument--that is what really sets a lot of scientists off in the first place, and makes them not even want to participate in the debate. CO2 levels have varied throughout history, and to think that we can actually accurately measure them(in the past) by our indirect methods is accepting too many variables that we either do not know, or can not measure. Fact: The weather changes. It gets warmer, it gets colder--it has done this for eons before man and the automobile ever got here and factored into the equation. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a natural consequence of the oxidation of organic material. Basically, any organic matter that decomposes or burns yields CO2. Any animal that breathes, exhales CO2. Plants like this--they use this CO2 and with their metabolism use this to keep our environment green. CO2 is heavier than air; if released in quantity, it displaces O2 and Nitrogen and will lead to a dangerous situation that can suffocate animal life. The concentration of CO2 at altitude (where the so-called "Green House" effect takes place) is so small that measuring it is very difficult--its concentration is within the margin of error that the machines used to measure it operate. Why do we have to make CO2 the "bad boy" in the "Global Warming" controversy? Why do we have idiots saying we can take the CO2 out of natural gas and pump it into the ground to keep levels down? Did all these idiots either not take or did they all fail chemistry in high school? CO2 from organic sources comes from the combustion of these sources to provide energy that we need. It is not a pollutant or impurity in the organic sources like many would have you believe. Cap and Trade, carbon footprints, etc. are policies based on faulty science to make money for some enterprising unethical souls who are really out to get theirs and rape the poor unsuspecting innocents whose ignorance of the real science behind the weather change phenomena makes them easy prey for these unscrupulous con men. Does anyone think that buying "Carbon Offsets" can really accomplish anything? It is not anyones fault that the weather changes-no one is guilty here-stop acting like it. To think that we can influence the weather to a significant degree is ludicrous--does anyone have any idea what a volcano does when it erupts? A significant volcanic eruption puts particulate and gaseous material into the atmosphere in staggering quantities. CO2?? How about Carbon monoxide? Hydrogen sulfide? Nitric and nitrate compounds that are really noxious little critters. Ammonia?? Sulfonic acid, and a host of other products of the oxidation of the mineral and organic compounds from the Earth's mantle and crust. A single volcanic eruption can unload more CO2 into the atmosphere that all the automobiles on Earth. Tons of it. Does Cap and Trade have provisions to tax, penalize, etc. those states with active volcanoes? Should the UN make all the countries with active volcanoes pay a global tax to make up for their increased carbon footprint? The shear idiocy of this debate is staggering.
| 552 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 12:56:12pm |
re: #551 docrambo
Turning Global Warming into a religion is intellectually damning-whether you're conservative or liberal--tree hugger or tree cutter. The argument that "all", "the majority", "the preponderance" of scientists believe in Global Warming and its detrimental effects is not correct.
That's just flat-out false. It is absolutely true that the vast majority of climate scientists are convinced BY EVIDENCE that global warming is occurring and that human beings are responsible for it.
The rest of your comment is the standard litany of ridiculous anti-science falsehoods that get dumped into every climate change thread at LGF, in transparent attempts to increase the noise level and fool the gullible.
| 553 |
Obdicut Sat, Nov 28, 2009 12:57:25pm |
re: #551 docrambo
Jesus, dude, have some dignity.
"so-called Green House" effect. My god.
You can prove the greenhouse effect in, literally, a greenhouse. It's fun and easy.
You could also just look at Venus.
| 554 |
captdiggs Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:07:29pm |
re: #550 Charles
What a stupid comment. There's no "conspiracy theory." The Bush administration kept the photos classified and did not release them to the public. This is something known as a "fact."
You called it a "cover-up" in this post:
427 Charles Fri, Nov 27, 2009 9:50:45pm
re: #424 Gus 802Disturbing and shameful. That a president would have suppressed such information. Ironically if it wasn't released by the current administration it would have required a FOIA request.
Classified climate and geological information. That's probably a first.
That's right. This is a REAL cover-up,
"cover-up" would imply a conspiracy to hide information.
I don't see a "cover-up" when the photos were distributed to scientists prior to the release to the public.
| 555 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:14:54pm |
re: #554 captdiggs
"cover-up" would imply a conspiracy to hide information.
I don't see a "cover-up" when the photos were distributed to scientists prior to the release to the public.
That's right, it was a cover-up. No conspiracy involved -- the Bush administration simply did the same thing they did with numerous other pieces of global warming evidence -- they kept it from the public.
It does not matter whether the photos were released to scientists. They remained off limits to the public, and that was a deliberate choice by the Bush administration.
I understand that you're trying to toss out the word "conspiracy theory" in order to mock this story and minimize it as much as possible.
Meanwhile, you have no problem at all with a conspiracy to steal data from the University of East Anglia, cherry-pick through it, and release a deliberately biased selection in order to sabotage the Copenhagen summit. That was a REAL conspiracy.
| 556 |
woodentop Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:18:50pm |
re: #552 Charles
That's just flat-out false. It is absolutely true that the vast majority of climate scientists are convinced BY EVIDENCE that global warming is occurring and that human beings are responsible for it.
The rest of your comment is the standard litany of ridiculous anti-science falsehoods that get dumped into every climate change thread at LGF, in transparent attempts to increase the noise level and fool the gullible.
The "evidence" that humans are responsible comes from a smoke-filled room of AGW scientists who have a vested interested in concluding that, no?
| 557 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:19:22pm |
re: #556 woodentop
The "evidence" that humans are responsible comes from a smoke-filled room of AGW scientists who have a vested interested in concluding that, no?
Oh brother.
| 558 |
Gus Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:20:41pm |
re: #554 captdiggs
"cover-up" would imply a conspiracy to hide information.
I don't see a "cover-up" when the photos were distributed to scientists prior to the release to the public.
Cover-up doesn't imply a conspiracy. This was the standard modus operandi for the administration regarding specific scientific information. Arguing the semantic serves no purpose. It was already well known several years ago that a scientific information was either manipulated or held back -- it was even in the news. Call it what you may: cover-up, distortion, obfuscation, suppression, black-out, etc.
| 559 |
docrambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:21:56pm |
The 2007 Bush Report that designates the six greenhouse gases is so sophomoric that it defies any logic in chemistry and physics. The assumptions that the report makes--that these 6 gases may last for decades is so absurd. All the compounds measured react with simple water molecules forming compounds that are basically innocuous. The absurdity that CO2 lasts for decades is so wrong that the people who wrote this report and the people who went along with its recommendations must have had an ulterior motive in presenting this report as science. For the true scientific critics to keep so quiet about it is also damning as to the role of political correctness in our society. The report repeatedly makes assumptions that the panel takes as absolute fact. The report is so far from science that it is laughable. Where are all the real scientists when you really need them? Keeping quiet so they won't be criticized for going against the religious fervor of the believers?
| 560 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:24:51pm |
re: #559 docrambo
Your comment is so incredibly ignorant and misguided, it isn't even wrong. It's just weird.
Why are you anxious to portray climate science as a "religion?" Obviously, you think there's something less valid about religion, or you wouldn't be using that comparison as a smear.
| 561 |
Gus Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:27:43pm |
re: #559 docrambo
Religious fervor of the believers? And the opposite side with Alex Jones, Nick Griffin, and other similar hyper-partisan crack-pots screaming Maoism and New World Order?
The masters of hyperbole have spoken.
| 562 |
philosophus invidius Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:37:28pm |
re: #544 philosophus invidius
But the the authors state clearly that this is an anomoly related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases.
Since I got downdinged for this one, let me explain:
1) The blog linked to by Romona stated that the Tedesco paper undermines evidence for global warming since Antarctic ice melt was very low in last summer.
2) But looking at the actual article reveals that the authors have an explanation for this "anomaly": the combination of El Ninyo and Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode.
The point is that the deniers think global warming would have to be straight upward curve everyone for global warming to be real.
Tedesco and his colleague conclude:
Negative melting anomalies observed in recent years do not contradict recently published results on surface temperature trends over Antarctica [e.g., Steig et al., 2009]. The time period used for those studies extends back to the 1950's, well beyond 1980, and the largest temperature increases are found during winter and spring rather than summer, and are generally limited to West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. Summer SAM trends have increased since the 1970s [Marshall, 2003], suppressing warming over much of Antarctica during the satellite melt record [Turner et al., 2005]. Moreover, melting and surface temperature are not necessarily linearly related because the entire surface energy balance must be considered [Liston and Winther, 2005; Torinesi et al., 2003].
| 563 |
woodentop Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:40:19pm |
re: #557 Charles
Oh brother.
As I understand matters, the attribution of warming to human activity is an opinion of IPCC members, based on the absence of any other explanation and computer models which (on a circular basis) have the CO2 warming built in.
Help me out here. I have a science degree (computing and physics) and I'm now a lawyer but I am failing to see the evidence for AGW. On the contrary, the indications are that this is a scam.
| 564 |
captdiggs Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:42:31pm |
re: #555 Charles
I used "conspiracy theory" not only accurately, but also to try and wake some people up to the creeping zealotry that accompanies this topic.
It blinds people to many things, and causes lapses in judgement.
And that applies to both sides.
| 565 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:47:50pm |
re: #563 woodentop
Help me out here. I have a science degree (computing and physics) ...
Then you should be able to tell me why the mean surface temperatures of the Moon and the Earth are different, yes?
| 566 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:47:51pm |
re: #563 woodentop
As I understand matters, the attribution of warming to human activity is an opinion of IPCC members, based on the absence of any other explanation and computer models which (on a circular basis) have the CO2 warming built in.
Clearly, you don't understand matters at all. I'm probably wasting my time, because you've already demonstrated that you believe scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public. But the FACTS are that there is a mountain of physical evidence, temperature measurements, sea ice measurements, etc., that has led the vast majority of climate scientists to accept that humans are causing global warming, by putting many gigatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Help me out here. I have a science degree (computing and physics) and I'm now a lawyer but I am failing to see the evidence for AGW. On the contrary, the indications are that this is a scam.
It's not a scam. If you want to educate yourself instead of simply accepting the propaganda of climate change deniers, here's a link at RealClimate to numerous sources of data; you could start there:
[Link: www.realclimate.org...]
I suspect you're going to just dismiss it, though.
| 567 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:48:45pm |
re: #565 freetoken
Why did the reply go into never never land?
| 568 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:49:26pm |
re: #564 captdiggs
I used "conspiracy theory" not only accurately, but also to try and wake some people up to the creeping zealotry that accompanies this topic.
It blinds people to many things, and causes lapses in judgement.And that applies to both sides.
You used "conspiracy theory" in a very transparent attempt to excuse away the FACT that the Bush administration deliberately kept those photographs classified.
| 569 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:50:04pm |
re: #567 freetoken
Why did the reply go into never never land?
Unclosed blockquote tag. If you reload, I fixed it for you and the rest of your comment is now visible.
| 571 |
McJenny50 Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:51:30pm |
I hate to ask a dumb question but what about the computer programmer's notes contained in the code? I don't read computer code (unless it's Apple Soft Basic) but has anyone one checked those out?
| 572 |
docrambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:51:36pm |
Calling the Bush Report or the Obama Report "science" is an insult to academics. Why do people have to think that someone is to blame for climate change? Is this the same guilt that drove people to vote for "Hope & Change"? Active volcanoes pollute the atmosphere far worse than any of us-fact. We just went through the third coldest October in recorded history-fact. So far, two examples of climatologists falsifying data have come to light-fact. Carbon offsets do not help-fact. (Except to line Al Gore's pockets-fact) The Greenhouse Effect is not helpful in explaining the increased radiation we are seeing at altitudes and the increased skin cancer and radiation damage we are seeing in people who live at high altitudes-fact. There are scientists who do not agree with the Greenhouse Effect--fact. Ignoring the data that shows polar bears are numerous and healthy doesn't help. Going along with what one feels is the majority is not always the wisest move, and instituting policies and lifestyle changes that have no proven effect is ludicrous. Sure we can all be a bit more green in our approach to our lifestyles, but to go around saying "mea culpa" all day long does not benefit anyone. Majority of scientists? I do not think so. Only 3000 out of 9000 at the conference on climate change endorsed the findings. Before ascribing the majority feel one way or the other, you need better numbers than this. I certainly agree that the weather is changing--proof that humans are to blame is sorely lacking, and based on non-scientific assumptions. Ignoring contradictory data is not science.
| 573 |
woodentop Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:51:55pm |
re: #565 freetoken
Then you should be able to tell me why the mean surface temperatures of the Moon and the Earth are different, yes?
Yes I could, but I fail to see why the absence of atmosphere on the moon due to its lack of mass has anything to do with AGW.
| 574 |
Gus Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:52:59pm |
Sample distortion from Newsbusters:
Co-host Russ Mitchell introduced Palmer’s report by fretting: “Scientists report today that the Arctic is melting so fast, the North Pole could be ice free during the summer within the next decade or two.” Meanwhile, in the New York Times story, Andrew Revkin explained: “The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic on Tuesday, noting a substantial expansion of the extent of “second-year ice” — floes thick enough to have persisted through two summers of melting. The result could be a reprieve, at least for a while, from the recent stretch of remarkable summer meltdowns.” The CBS report failed to cite such evidence.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.
NSIDC Director and Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”
| 575 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:54:35pm |
re: #573 woodentop
Yes I could, but I fail to see why the absence of atmosphere on the moon...
Why does the atmosphere matter?
| 576 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 1:59:56pm |
re: #572 docrambo
Another litany of denialist talking points, with so many falsehoods and lies it isn't worth answering. Tedious.
This is exactly the same way creationists argue -- they dump a load of nonsense talking points and lies, refuse to answer any replies, then accuse scientists of being "religious." It's amazing how similarly these two groups behave -- it must be their mutual loathing of science that causes it.
| 577 |
woodentop Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:03:37pm |
re: #566 Charles
It's not a scam. If you want to educate yourself instead of simply accepting the propaganda of climate change deniers, here's a link at RealClimate to numerous sources of data; you could start there:
[Link: www.realclimate.org...]
I suspect you're going to just dismiss it, though.
Charles, realclimate is run by proponents of AGW. I've been there before and it's an unsatisfying place, with a clear agenda. At least here one can read both sides of the debate and I thank you for that.
As far as education goes, I'll stick with my old school knowledge of the physical world and a cynical eye on politicians who seem to be rather keen on the whole thing.
| 578 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:04:09pm |
re: #577 woodentop
Charles, realclimate is run by proponents of AGW. I've been there before and it's an unsatisfying place, with a clear agenda. At least here one can read both sides of the debate and I thank you for that.
As far as education goes, I'll stick with my old school knowledge of the physical world and a cynical eye on politicians who seem to be rather keen on the whole thing.
Just as I predicted. You simply dismissed it all without even looking at it. No surprises here.
| 579 |
woodentop Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:06:05pm |
| 580 |
woodentop Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:10:55pm |
re: #578 Charles
Just as I predicted. You simply dismissed it all without even looking at it. No surprises here.
I have looked at it, as I indicated in my post, and have formed the appropriate conclusion.
| 581 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:11:29pm |
re: #579 woodentop
It acts as a buffer.
Not a very good answer.
"buffer" is used in computer science and chemistry with their very specific meanings.
The atmosphere of Earth acts both as an optical medium and as a kinetic (thermal) energy transport.
If you or anyone else with sufficient (1st year college physics) background are interested in more detail, Professor Ray Pierrehumbert at the Univ. of Chicago has finally completed his freely available textbook on an introduction to climate physics (atmosphere):
Or of course you could pay the $70+ for a regular college level text.
| 582 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:13:51pm |
re: #580 woodentop
I have looked at it, as I indicated in my post, and have formed the appropriate conclusion.
Really? You looked at the dozens of data sources listed on that page, and decided they were all bunk, in about ten minutes?
Wow. Impressive. (I knew I was wasting my time.)
| 583 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:15:15pm |
re: #574 Gus 802
Sample distortion from Newsbusters:
There's so much dishonesty and lying going on at the right wing blogs over this issue, it's simply disgusting.
| 584 |
woodentop Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:17:08pm |
re: #582 Charles
Really? You looked at the dozens of data sources listed on that page, and decided they were all bunk, in about ten minutes?
Wow. Impressive. (I knew I was wasting my time.)
I've been following this subject for many years, I've visited many websites and read many books. I don't consider myself an idiot - where am I going wrong?
| 585 |
woodentop Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:19:24pm |
re: #581 freetoken
Not a very good answer.
"buffer" is used in computer science and chemistry with their very specific meanings.
The atmosphere of Earth acts both as an optical medium and as a kinetic (thermal) energy transport.
If you or anyone else with sufficient (1st year college physics) background are interested in more detail, Professor Ray Pierrehumbert at the Univ. of Chicago has finally completed his freely available textbook on an introduction to climate physics (atmosphere):
Or of course you could pay the $70+ for a regular college level text.
Come on, you know what meant... it's my job to torture syntax!
| 586 |
Gus Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:22:06pm |
re: #583 Charles
There's so much dishonesty and lying going on at the right wing blogs over this issue, it's simply disgusting.
Yes. They used it to attack CBS as well as AGW. Stronger on the media attack side.
It looks to me like they're running out of resources. Now that NASA is on the hit-list who else will follow? The government agencies they don't trust and see as biased now include NASA, NOAA, and NSF. Others include the NSIDC and most universities (Horowitz, et al). On the media side they don't trust ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, National Geographic, Washington Post, etc.
It's going beyond the party of no and they're becoming more isolated every day. They've lost trust with government and private institutions and the whole of the media short of Fox News and sometimes the WSJ.
| 587 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:24:00pm |
re: #586 Gus 802
... media short of Fox News and sometimes the WSJ.
Don't forget the IBD! And Newsbusters!
| 588 |
McJenny50 Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:24:14pm |
re: #571 McJenny50
I hate to ask a dumb question but what about the computer programmer's notes contained in the code? I don't read computer code (unless it's Apple Soft Basic) but has anyone one checked those out?
Does this mean my question was too dumb to address? I have read a couple articles about the code but don't really understand it. Has anyone looked into it enough to have a reasoned opinion?
| 589 |
Gus Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:25:16pm |
re: #587 freetoken
Don't forget the IBD! And Newsbusters!
Oh yeah. They will always have their blogs to turn to for hard science. You know blogs like Free Republic and Hot Air.
//
| 590 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:32:37pm |
re: #588 McJenny50
The problem with looking at snippets of code and their associated comments is that there is no context. Without having the design documents and the history, it is an exercise in futility and not something I personally would waste my time upon.
If you are interested in models for climatology, there are plenty online. There is a whole journal (published by the European Geophysical Union) dedicated to modeling.
The NASA agency that handles climate, GISS (headed by Dr. Hansen) has had their data and models online for anyone, for some time.
Much more simple models abound everywhere (and indeed, the Univ. of Chicago link I posted above has very simple models of basic processes.)
The canard being spewed by the right-o-sphere that their is some great cover-up of climate data and models is just that - a canard. It stems from the work of one dilettante by the name of McIntyre who has made it his end-of-life work to be a pest to a couple of research units, one headed by Mann, the other by Briffa, both of whom do reconstruction of temperature data.
The blather machine of the politicians, especially Inhofe, have been pimping McIntyre's claims for years. Now the wanna-bes think they have something of importance in some stolen emails, but what they have is trivial in comparison to what the truth really is - which put succinctly shows that humans indeed are influencing the climate of the earth, and rather significantly at that.
| 591 |
DocRambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:33:13pm |
The obfuscation of opposing views is better done by fact than by gross mischaracterization of those views. When one does not have objective rebuttals, name calling must suffice. Methods prevalent at The Daily Koss, not in a forum of free exchange worthy of LGF. When one has opposite findings in the scientific world, one has to look at the basis for those findings. Objectivity has been sorely lacking on both sides, but the truth is that one cannot base facts on assumptions (which is what makes science different from religion). Also, in science, the data speaks for itself and needs no biased interpretation (no elitist priests or mullahs to explain it to the common folk). Ignoring the chemistry of the entire controversy benefits no one. I am a scientist (chemist), believe in evolution (DNA essentially proves it), and will remain skeptical that puny humankind is responsible for any weather change we are seeing, when our misdeeds are only one of thousands of variables that affect the issue. I am not so elitist that I will not listen to opposing views, but please do not confuse either of the government reports that characterize six innocuous chemical compounds as the primary cause of any climate change as real science. Anyone who passed freshman chemistry can understand that you cannot base science on assumptions.
| 592 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:35:21pm |
re: #591 DocRambo
You're spewing pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. If you want to be respected, stop coming off as a kook. I'm not impressed with attempts to paint yourself as a victim.
| 593 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:37:34pm |
re: #591 DocRambo
I am a scientist (chemist)... Anyone who passed freshman chemistry can understand that you cannot base science on assumptions.
Then I recommend you go speak with Eli Rabett, who knows a heck of a lot about Chemistry, who has a blog:
[Link: rabett.blogspot.com...]
and will be able to answer your questions regarding chemistry and AGW.
However, he is one professor who will not suffer fools, so you better bring your A game.
| 594 |
McJenny50 Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:46:58pm |
re: #590 freetoken
Thanks, however... There are some examples online of some of the code (no link unless you want it since I don't know if it's an approved site) but there are some things listed that concern me. I don't seem to be able to copy and paste the info but here's an approximation:
05 ; Specify the period over which to compute the regressions (stop in
06 1960 to avoid
07 ; the decline
and
00 ;
01 ; Specify the period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960
02 to avoid
03 ; the decline that reflects tree-ring density records)
04 ;
| 595 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:54:04pm |
re: #594 McJenny50
One would have to be a specialist in dendrochronology (the study of time by looking at tree rings and such) to even begin to appreciate why somebody would discuss a year like "1960" in comments.
Dendrochronology is a specialty within a speciality (paleoclimatology) and it is futile to think an outsider will even begin to understand why certain things are done, or others left undone, without lots of study.
| 596 |
DocRambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 2:56:55pm |
Wander through the data at RealClimate.org and gander at the science it shows. Reference is made to an article in Nature from May 2008:" High Resolution Carbon Dioxide Concentrations a record from 650,000 -800,000 years before present". Based on ice core samples from Antarctica, this paper shows well that temperature anomalies and varying CO2 levels were present thousands of years before man ever arrived on the scene. Levels were as high, or a little higher than today, with corresponding temperature anomalies. Sunspot activity? Dinosaur farts? I'm not sure, but it sure wasn't mankind, or his sinful activities with the internal combustion machine. If it is OK with other Lizards, I'll not take the blame for any weather change we see today until there is better science.
| 597 |
DocRambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 3:10:17pm |
re: #593 freetoken
re: #593 freetoken
Then I recommend you go speak with Eli Rabett, who knows a heck of a lot about Chemistry, who has a blog:
[Link: rabett.blogspot.com...]
and will be able to answer your questions regarding chemistry and AGW.However, he is one professor who will not suffer fools, so you better bring your A game.
Professor Rabett has managed to ignore the chemistry and physical principles of the alleged six greenhouse gases from the beginning. Try looking at climate data from prehistoric times. CO2 levels as high as today, with corresponding temperature anomalies. He cries "damage" without referencing it, and has made a pastime of decrying the Chicken Little technique of "The Sky is Falling." I'll wait for more data, before I change my views, but the changes he recommends are realistic and not harmful.
| 598 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 3:15:03pm |
| 599 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 3:15:32pm |
re: #593 freetoken
Then I recommend you go speak with Eli Rabett, who knows a heck of a lot about Chemistry, who has a blog:
[Link: rabett.blogspot.com...]
and will be able to answer your questions regarding chemistry and AGW.However, he is one professor who will not suffer fools, so you better bring your A game.
You're wasting your time with this one. He'll just dismiss anything you say out of hand. He's a true believer.
| 601 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 4:59:34pm |
re: #600 DocRambo
International CAPS LOCK day was on Oct. 22.
| 603 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 5:01:59pm |
If you post another message in all caps, I'll block your account. That's not acceptable at LGF.
| 604 |
DocRambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 5:09:30pm |
re: #599 Charles
Just like some of my grad students. With time and patience, the truth will usually come out. I really don't think we need to ruin our economy to ward off weather change. The sky is not falling. Read the data. Check out your own referenced sources and see what they have to say. Be objective. If people are not skeptical when anything is promulgated by the government, they are asking for trouble. Can you define civil discourse?
| 605 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Nov 28, 2009 5:14:43pm |
re: #604 DocRambo
You're telling me to be objective -- after you dumped a load of ludicrous pseudo-scientific rubbish into this thread like a talking parrot? That's a hoot.
| 606 |
DocRambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 5:29:22pm |
re: #598 freetoken
Please just read the paper. If you have any questions or trouble with the big words, graphs, etc, I am sure that Charles can help you. Didn't know they had a CAPS LOCK Day. Forgive me, wasn't trying to be rude.
| 607 |
DocRambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 5:40:25pm |
re: #603 Charles
Hit by mistake Charles. Didn't realize it until tried to answer you and caps were small and lower case were all caps. Did not mean to offend. Check out your own sources, read the papers, and keep a jaundiced eye out whenever reading any publish or perish drivel. The conclusions of many of the papers are not warranted by the data, and too many are based on assumptions, and climate models that even the purveyors of them admit can leave out unknown variables. The paper in Nature is pure data, graphed so even I can understand it, and does not come to unwarranted conclusions.
| 608 |
DocRambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 5:51:47pm |
“Civil discourse is our ability to have conversation about topics about which we disagree, and our ability to listen to each others’ perspectives.” We must remember that science is not a democracy and the majority does not decide the truth. Time and the scientific method will usually prevail. Well designed experiments and objectivity in our conclusions help.
| 609 |
DocRambo Sat, Nov 28, 2009 8:07:42pm |
Check out the following:
[Link: www.nature.com...]
This graph from Luthi, et al in Nature, May, 2008, clearly shows levels of CO2 higher than today at ~318,000 years ago. At cores dating to ~110,000 years ago, 240,000, and 400,000 years ago, levels were not significantly different than they are today. I do not think that this cyclical change shown not only in this ice core data, but by others from other sites, had anything to do with humankind. The corresponding temperature anomalies are at times higher than today's. This is Science with a capital S. I am not a denier. I have no dog in this fight, except the truth should matter, even to those zealously committed to phony science when the real science totally unmasks what the "majority" spokespeople for scientific organizations are espousing.
| 610 |
freetoken Sat, Nov 28, 2009 9:02:27pm |
re: #609 DocRambo
Sorry but no.
At a little over 300,000 ybp the CO2 was just about 300 ppm.
Today the value is about 390 ppm.
Last I checked, 390 was greater than 300.
And, our output is CO2 is still increasing! Within a couple of years we will be past 400ppm, then 450ppm, then 500ppm... and so on.
The Nature paper is only the paleoclimate data. The current measurements are not on that graph.
The Good Liars at The Libertarian Convention [VIDEO] The Good Liars visit the Libertarian Convention in Washington DC. They interview presidential candidates, talk to someone who thinks people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, and Starchild. SUPPORT US: http://Herohero.co/thegoodliars SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!NASHVILLE, TN JUNE ...
teleskiguy
Adam Conover - How Google RUINED the Internet [VIDEO] Google sucks now. Here's why. Get 20% off DeleteMe US consumer plans when you go to http://joindeleteme.com/Adam and use promo code ADAM at checkout. DeleteMe International Plans: https://international.joindeleteme.com/ You may have noticed that Google isn't what it used to ... teleskiguy
What Result Will There Be From the Trump Trial?I did my best to boil this down. What say you?
Rightwingconspirator
An Appeal to Heaven An ancient political phrase and a historic flag of the United States has entered the discourse as a flag of Christian Nationalism, insurrection, and the question of Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito's objectivity to rule on cases. So ...
Anymouse 🌹🏡😷
Grocers Are Finally Lowering Prices as Consumers Pull Back Consumers have been grumbling about the soaring cost of groceries for nearly two years. Now, some of the biggest names in retail appear to be listening. In recent weeks, Target and Aldi have broadcast price cuts on thousands of ...
Cheechako
A Water War Is Brewing Between the U.S. And Mexico. Here’s Why A water dispute between the United States and Mexico that goes back decades is turning increasingly urgent in Texas communities that rely on the Rio Grande. Their leaders are now demanding the Mexican government either share water or face ... Cheechako
Harper’s Magazine: Slippery Slope - How Private Equity Shapes a Ski Town …Big Sky stands apart for other reasons. The obvious distinction is the Yellowstone Club, a private resort hidden in the mountains above the community that Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale and the author of Billionaire Wilderness, ... teleskiguy
Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory Just Captured Ominous Signals About the Planet’s Health Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory just captured an ominous sign about the pace of global warming. Atmospheric levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide aren’t just on their way to yet another record high this year - they’re rising faster than ever, ... Cheechako
The Good Liars at the Schnecksville Trump Rally [VIDEO] New theories, great tunes and SHOCKING breaking news. SUPPORT US: http://Herohero.co/thegoodliars SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!WASHINGTON D.C. MAY 23RD: https://www.unionstage.com/shows/good-liars-fix-america/NASHVILLE, TN JUNE 6TH: https://www.etix.com/ticket/p/42992972/the-good-liars-nashville-the-lab-at-zaniesSAN FRANCISCO, CA JUNE 25TH: https://www.livenation.com/event/G5vYZbavGvggG/the-good-liars SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-good-liars-tell-the-truth/id1731178442Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7mgfiwzr32907N4y68eFOCJoin this channel ... teleskiguy
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ... Cheechako
