(Close Window)
Topic: Scientists agree on Global Warming
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 18, 2014 12:20PM)
98% of scientists agree that Global Warming is real, serious and manmade:

http://huff.to/19CQsmx
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 18, 2014 12:44PM)
Or at least between 97% and 98% of "the most actively published climate scientists."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 18, 2014 12:46PM)
The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions


To John Cook – it isn’t ‘hate’, it’s pity, – pity for having such a weak argument you are forced to fabricate conclusions of epic proportions

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 18, 2014 01:07PM)
As a person, it worries me that there are so many people vocally railing against something with so much expert support. As someone who studies social influence though, I find it fascinating.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 18, 2014 01:11PM)
99% of the of believers must on Pops Magnetized Water.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 18, 2014 01:19PM)
[img]http://qwstnevrythg.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tinfoil-cat.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 18, 2014 02:00PM)
Yes that hat would fit those who believe the theory that humanity is conspiring to heat the planet.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 18, 2014 03:22PM)
But tommy, the report is clear. 98% of published, peer-reviewed studies--real science.

Studies that didn't express an opinion were left out. That didn't mean the researchers didn't have an opinion--it just wasn't expressed in the particular article they submitted.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 18, 2014 03:26PM)
Great article - thanks Pop!

Let's not forget that some 30 years ago ozone depletion was a big problem. But then the Montreal Protocol (which by the way was universally supported) went into effect and the results were unambiguously positive. So we have an actual case history of a) humans affecting the environment, and b) taking corrective action.

It's not rocket science. It's simple climate science. :)

PS - The ultra conservative Koch Brothers funded a study on global warming and (to their shock and dismay) the results [i]confirmed[/i] that agw is real!

Ron
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 18, 2014 03:26PM)
I am on Magnetized Water, tommy

Maybe you should be, too! :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 18, 2014 03:33PM)
RS-

The Kochs and their supporters, of course, would prefer to forget the findings of that study. They've now gone back to funding "research" by those who accept, a priori, Big Oil's propaganda that AGW is a myth. (Just as they once produced fake "studies" that purported to show that tobacco wasn't dangerous.)
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 18, 2014 03:57PM)
Check out this video which discusses the report in the original post...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwF4lAptIz0&feature=c4-overview&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ


Ron
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 18, 2014 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-18 15:00, tommy wrote:
Yes that hat would fit those who believe the theory that humanity is conspiring to heat the planet.
[/quote]

That they're good looking?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 18, 2014 07:32PM)
That they're good looking like blondes.

In the meantime, not only is the man made global warming bunk costing us all money but it's also resulting in more pollution than before. The Mexico’s senate have just been brought in the United Nations approved Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, which have become notorious for problems with fraud, corruption and which have caused emissions to increase.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 18, 2014 07:40PM)
Would be, what with all of the sunlight.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 18, 2014 08:02PM)
Sunlight! It's the Sun that is causing it! What are you some sort of denier?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jan 19, 2014 07:20AM)
Lol
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 19, 2014 07:39AM)
Solutions?
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 19, 2014 07:47AM)
Global Warming and Global Freezing are natural events based on the orbit and tilt of Earth.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Jan 19, 2014 09:02AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 08:47, Dennis Michael wrote:
Global Warming and Global Freezing are natural events based on the orbit and tilt of Earth.
[/quote]

I was beginning to think that I was the only one with any common sense.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 19, 2014 09:33AM)
Whose emissions have caused the most damage?

[img]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/WHdF5zhIXeDDhMHvc1RpkQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNzY7cT03OTt3PTcxNw--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-01-16/52a2c1ac-662e-4ab7-93f0-e70c73c51fc8_erl483242f1_hr.jpg[/img]

And what has caused the damage?

[img]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/w1f.9CGK.Lg8ls9iJCSr3g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-01-16/5bf8bb69-f628-4749-a610-7cb5661679a1_erl483242f2_hr.jpg[/img]

From a new study. [url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/new-global-warming-data-shows-which-countries-are-most-responsible-162334607.html#kRTVRBG]News report[/url] here.

[quote]The scientific community around the world agrees: global warming is everyone's problem. But which countries have contributed to it the most? A new study from Concordia University in Montreal reveals the prime culprits - and it's not good news for Britain and the US.

The data looks at total carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature increases from 1750 to 2005, taking into account fossil fuel combustion and land-use change, as well as methane, nitrous oxide and sulphate aerosol emissions.

The team, led by Associate Professor Damon Matthews at the department of Geography, Planning and Environment, measured the percentage of temperature change that could be attributed to individual countries. They found that, since 1750, the United States has been the largest single contributor to global warming, responsible for nearly 20 per cent of the rise in average temperature.

Second in the list was China, followed by Russia, Brazil and India in the top five. Germany came in sixth, with the United Kingdom ranked seventh overall for its contribution to global warming, accounting for roughly 4.4 percent of temperature change.

The picture changed dramatically when the team calculated the contributions to global warming on a per capita basis - looking at which countries had been most responsible for a rise in temperature relative to their population.

The report found that the emissions analysed accounted for a global average temperature rise of nearly 1 degree celsius since the Industrial age, and of 0.7 degrees since 1906 - in line with previous findings that put the change at 0.74 degrees since 1906.

While the report focusses on the impact that developed countries have had on global warming, the team of scientists acknowledges that future temperature changes will depend on emerging economies adding to the current levels of emissions.

The report concludes: ' If we are to have a chance of staying below 2 °C while also addressing fundamentally important issues associated with international equity, it is imperative that developed countries do not allow their greenhouse gas emissions to continue increasing at historical rates.' [/quote]

[url=http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014010/pdf/1748-9326_9_1_014010.pdf]Original Article[/url] here.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 19, 2014 10:16AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 10:02, NicholasD wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 08:47, Dennis Michael wrote:
Global Warming and Global Freezing are natural events based on the orbit and tilt of Earth.
[/quote]

I was beginning to think that I was the only one with any common sense.
[/quote]

If common sense means denying science despite the clear evidence, there is really nothing that can be said.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 19, 2014 10:51AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 10:33, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whose emissions have caused the most damage?

[img]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/WHdF5zhIXeDDhMHvc1RpkQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNzY7cT03OTt3PTcxNw--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-01-16/52a2c1ac-662e-4ab7-93f0-e70c73c51fc8_erl483242f1_hr.jpg[/img]

And what has caused the damage?

[img]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/w1f.9CGK.Lg8ls9iJCSr3g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-01-16/5bf8bb69-f628-4749-a610-7cb5661679a1_erl483242f2_hr.jpg[/img]

From a new study. [url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/new-global-warming-data-shows-which-countries-are-most-responsible-162334607.html#kRTVRBG]News report[/url] here.

[quote]The scientific community around the world agrees: global warming is everyone's problem. But which countries have contributed to it the most? A new study from Concordia University in Montreal reveals the prime culprits - and it's not good news for Britain and the US.

The data looks at total carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature increases from 1750 to 2005, taking into account fossil fuel combustion and land-use change, as well as methane, nitrous oxide and sulphate aerosol emissions.

The team, led by Associate Professor Damon Matthews at the department of Geography, Planning and Environment, measured the percentage of temperature change that could be attributed to individual countries. They found that, since 1750, the United States has been the largest single contributor to global warming, responsible for nearly 20 per cent of the rise in average temperature.

Second in the list was China, followed by Russia, Brazil and India in the top five. Germany came in sixth, with the United Kingdom ranked seventh overall for its contribution to global warming, accounting for roughly 4.4 percent of temperature change.

The picture changed dramatically when the team calculated the contributions to global warming on a per capita basis - looking at which countries had been most responsible for a rise in temperature relative to their population.

The report found that the emissions analysed accounted for a global average temperature rise of nearly 1 degree celsius since the Industrial age, and of 0.7 degrees since 1906 - in line with previous findings that put the change at 0.74 degrees since 1906.

While the report focusses on the impact that developed countries have had on global warming, the team of scientists acknowledges that future temperature changes will depend on emerging economies adding to the current levels of emissions.

The report concludes: ' If we are to have a chance of staying below 2 °C while also addressing fundamentally important issues associated with international equity, it is imperative that developed countries do not allow their greenhouse gas emissions to continue increasing at historical rates.' [/quote]

[url=http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014010/pdf/1748-9326_9_1_014010.pdf]Original Article[/url] here.
[/quote]

If all else fails to convince people. Throw in pretty colors. That usually works. If not then make some sort of graph and throw in some sort of study by some group that supports your theory. That should close the deal. :) Oh and be sure to call the group scientific. :)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 19, 2014 11:16AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 11:51, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 10:33, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whose emissions have caused the most damage?

[img]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/WHdF5zhIXeDDhMHvc1RpkQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNzY7cT03OTt3PTcxNw--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-01-16/52a2c1ac-662e-4ab7-93f0-e70c73c51fc8_erl483242f1_hr.jpg[/img]

And what has caused the damage?

[img]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/w1f.9CGK.Lg8ls9iJCSr3g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-01-16/5bf8bb69-f628-4749-a610-7cb5661679a1_erl483242f2_hr.jpg[/img]

From a new study. [url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/new-global-warming-data-shows-which-countries-are-most-responsible-162334607.html#kRTVRBG]News report[/url] here.

[quote]The scientific community around the world agrees: global warming is everyone's problem. But which countries have contributed to it the most? A new study from Concordia University in Montreal reveals the prime culprits - and it's not good news for Britain and the US.

The data looks at total carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature increases from 1750 to 2005, taking into account fossil fuel combustion and land-use change, as well as methane, nitrous oxide and sulphate aerosol emissions.

The team, led by Associate Professor Damon Matthews at the department of Geography, Planning and Environment, measured the percentage of temperature change that could be attributed to individual countries. They found that, since 1750, the United States has been the largest single contributor to global warming, responsible for nearly 20 per cent of the rise in average temperature.

Second in the list was China, followed by Russia, Brazil and India in the top five. Germany came in sixth, with the United Kingdom ranked seventh overall for its contribution to global warming, accounting for roughly 4.4 percent of temperature change.

The picture changed dramatically when the team calculated the contributions to global warming on a per capita basis - looking at which countries had been most responsible for a rise in temperature relative to their population.

The report found that the emissions analysed accounted for a global average temperature rise of nearly 1 degree celsius since the Industrial age, and of 0.7 degrees since 1906 - in line with previous findings that put the change at 0.74 degrees since 1906.

While the report focusses on the impact that developed countries have had on global warming, the team of scientists acknowledges that future temperature changes will depend on emerging economies adding to the current levels of emissions.

The report concludes: ' If we are to have a chance of staying below 2 °C while also addressing fundamentally important issues associated with international equity, it is imperative that developed countries do not allow their greenhouse gas emissions to continue increasing at historical rates.' [/quote]

[url=http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014010/pdf/1748-9326_9_1_014010.pdf]Original Article[/url] here.
[/quote]

If all else fails to convince people. Throw in pretty colors. That usually works. If not then make some sort of graph and throw in some sort of study by some group that supports your theory. That should close the deal. :) Oh and be sure to call the group scientific. :)
[/quote]

So tell me. Where is there an error in the data? Sarcasm and pretense of superiority gets you only so far. What is wrong with the data. I gave a link to the source, you should be able to tell us what is wrong with the graphics.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 19, 2014 11:35AM)
For those who prefer numbers to graphics, I have copied a table from the published research. As always, the Café is unfriendly to tables. The left column gives ranking for total contribution (emissions, deforestation, etc.) since 1750. The right column adjusts it to a per capita (per billion actually) ranking.

As you can see, the worst overall contributers are
1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Brazil
5. India.

But when you adjust for population, the worst offenders become

1. United Kingdom
2. USA
3. Canada
4. Russia
5. Germany

[quote]Table 3. Total versus per-capita contributions to temperature change for the world’s top 20 total emitters from table 2. Rows with light
shading indicate countries whose total or per-capita climate contribution is above the current global average (0:004 C per
country; 0:11C per billion people). Rows with dark shading indicate countries whose contribution is also above the projected
global average for a world with 9 billion people, 196 countries and a global warming of 2 C above pre-industrial (0:01C per country;
0:22 C per billion people).

Rank Total warming C Warming per billion people
1 United States 0.151 United Kingdom 0.54
2 China 0.063 United States 0.51
3 Russia 0.059 Canada 0.41
4 Brazil 0.049 Russia 0.41
5 India 0.047 Germany 0.40
6 Germany 0.033 Netherlands 0.34
7 United Kingdom 0.032 Australia 0.30
8 France 0.016 Brazil 0.26
9 Indonesia 0.015 France 0.26
10 Canada 0.013 Venezuela 0.25
11 Japan 0.013 Argentina 0.23
12 Mexico 0.010 Colombia 0.21
13 Thailand 0.009 Poland 0.19
14 Columbia 0.009 Thailand 0.14
15 Argentina 0.009 Japan 0.10
16 Poland 0.007 Mexico 0.09
17 Nigeria 0.007 Indonesia 0.07
18 Venezuela 0.007 Nigeria 0.05
19 Australia 0.006 China 0.05
20 Netherlands 0.006 India 0.04

[/quote]
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jan 19, 2014 11:38AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-18 14:11, tommy wrote:
99% of the of believers must on Pops Magnetized Water.

[/quote]

...or maybe they know more than you.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 19, 2014 11:47AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 12:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 11:51, acesover wrote:

If all else fails to convince people. Throw in pretty colors. That usually works. If not then make some sort of graph and throw in some sort of study by some group that supports your theory. That should close the deal. :) Oh and be sure to call the group scientific. :)
[/quote]

So tell me. Where is there an error in the data? Sarcasm and pretense of superiority gets you only so far. What is wrong with the data. I gave a link to the source, you should be able to tell us what is wrong with the graphics.
[/quote]

Exactly, Magnus. He presents NOTHING to contradict that data. The reason being, of course, that he has nothing to contradict it with. Hence the sarcasm and condescension. That's really all that the conspiracy theorists and science deniers have, anyway.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 19, 2014 11:49AM)
Certainly they know no more than their Oracle tells them.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jan 19, 2014 12:01PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 12:49, tommy wrote:
Certainly they know no more than their Oracle tells them.
[/quote]

...was that supposed to be an answer /q

Cause as an answer, it sucked.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 19, 2014 12:03PM)
It seems that it is the science deniers who accept the pronouncements of "oracles" rather than the findings of scientists.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 19, 2014 12:14PM)
I'll be long dead before it gets warm here in NJ.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 19, 2014 12:41PM)
[img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1526408_10152117163105155_1772249375_n.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 19, 2014 12:53PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 13:14, Dennis Michael wrote:
I'll be long dead before it gets warm here in NJ.
[/quote]

Where were you on the first day of this winter?

[quote]The first day of winter seemed more like the first day of spring across the Garden State.

Several record high temperatures were set today as unseasonably warm air moved into New Jersey, and on Sunday, virtually every temperature record in the state is likely to fall, according to forecasters.

In fact, in some places, the all-time record high temperature for the month could be challenged as temperatures could surge into the 70s a day into winter.

A brisk southerly flow is allowing mild air to push into the region from the south ahead of a powerful cold front moving into the center of the country, said Dean Iovino, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service’s Mount Holly office.
Newark, Atlantic City, New York and Philadelphia were among the major Northeast cities to break or tie records today.

The National Weather Service says both Atlantic City and Philadelphia reached 67 degrees this afternoon. That broke Atlantic City’s previous mark of 63 degrees, set in 2011, and bested Philadelphia’s previous high of 66 degrees, set in 1895...[/quote]

http://www.nj.com/weather-guy/index.ssf/2013/12/record_warmth_grips_nj_all-tim.html
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 19, 2014 12:53PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 13:41, mastermindreader wrote:
[img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1526408_10152117163105155_1772249375_n.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Far more often, I've heard the claim or suggestion that Global Warming is proven because it's warm today where I live.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 19, 2014 12:56PM)
Those who accept the science know the difference between climate and weather, and I've never heard any of them assert that it is proven because a given day is warm. Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 19, 2014 01:02PM)
The believers call their Oracles scientists, for it makes the believers feel all warm and cosy, even when it's freezing cold.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 19, 2014 02:44PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 14:02, tommy wrote:
The believers call their Oracles scientists, for it makes the believers feel all warm and cosy, even when it's freezing cold.

[/quote]

See the cartoon above, Tommy. Pretty well sums up your position.

What strikes me as odd is that you can accept nearly any conspiracy theory without any supporting evidence at all, but when it comes to something that has been documented and accepted by virtually all climate scientists, you don't hesitate to to claim is it false.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 19, 2014 03:07PM)
When is your long-promised climate catastrophe going to happen?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 19, 2014 04:01PM)
Read the scientific papers, tommy. Then you wouldn't need to ask that.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 19, 2014 05:25PM)
And for the people who can't read: Don't worry, it will never happen.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jan 19, 2014 07:10PM)
Tommy, do you ever bring anything to the table except cynicism?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 19, 2014 07:15PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 13:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.
[/quote]

No, it's not. I've heard the counter-examples, even if you haven't.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 19, 2014 07:31PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 20:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 13:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.
[/quote]

No, it's not. I've heard the counter-examples, even if you haven't.
[/quote]

And many right here on NVMS. Of course, when someone here claims how it proves AGW, Bob usually replies that it's because they obviously understand the science.

Anytime there is ANY type of unusual weather event, you can find news stories talking about how this is all because of climate change.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 19, 2014 08:06PM)
Beware of studies done by climate activists.

“97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

So, even though this study has been discredited, expect to continue to find it quoted over and over by warmists just as the previous stucy 'claiming' that 98% of climate scientists believe in AGW continues to be quoted despite it also being discredited.

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone did a study where they asked climate scientists if they agreed with the following claims.

1. Climate models have so far accurately predicted temperature increases
2. Within the next 100 years AGW will cause catastrophic results to civilization
3. Current proposed solutions to combat AGW will cost less than the cost of damage caused by AGW.
4. There is a direct correlation between rising CO2 and temperature.
5. It is expected that AGW will cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet within the next 100 years.

Don’t expect it because I don’t think warmists would like the answers they got back.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 19, 2014 08:25PM)
After checking out a couple of those abstracts linked, I see that a few of the "skeptics" cited there claim that humans contribute "only" about 50% to climate change. However they want to word it, that says that those scientists believe that there is strong support that man made climate change is real. That "natural" climate change is also real doesn't change that.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 19, 2014 08:58PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 21:06, rockwall wrote:
Beware of studies done by climate activists.

“97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

So, even though this study has been discredited, expect to continue to find it quoted over and over by warmists just as the previous stucy 'claiming' that 98% of climate scientists believe in AGW continues to be quoted despite it also being discredited.

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone did a study where they asked climate scientists if they agreed with the following claims.

1. Climate models have so far accurately predicted temperature increases
2. Within the next 100 years AGW will cause catastrophic results to civilization
3. Current proposed solutions to combat AGW will cost less than the cost of damage caused by AGW.
4. There is a direct correlation between rising CO2 and temperature.
5. It is expected that AGW will cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet within the next 100 years.

Don’t expect it because I don’t think warmists would like the answers they got back.

[/quote]

Did the authors even read what they wrote. For example, Scafetta was rated as agreeing that agreeing and endorsing the view that anthropogenic sources account for 50% or more of the observed increase in temperature.

Scafetti seems indignant that his paper could be so classified, replying

[quote]"Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.[/quote]

Oh my.

Shaviv is rated as "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise". He and the Popular Science blogger get all upset over this, even though the abstract to Saviv's article says

[quote]increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes.[/quote]

How is one to read this except that he attributes some of the temperature increase to anthropogenic causes?

The readers of this blog must be awfully gullible.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (Jan 19, 2014 09:03PM)
I love when Chicken Little people run around with their hair on fire.

30 years ago Time magazine we were going into an Ice Age.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 19, 2014 09:13PM)
But a Fraction of One Degree warming since Chief Sitting Bull was at large in 1880 is no laughing matter.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 19, 2014 09:55PM)
Nice cherry picking of your quotes Magnus.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 19, 2014 10:00PM)
"Carlin: "If Cook et al's paper is so far off in its classification of my paper, the next question is whether their treatment of my paper is an outlier in the quality of their analysis or is representative. Since I understand that five other skeptic paper authors whose papers were classified by Cook et al. (Idso, Morner, Scaffeta, Soon, and Shaviv) have similar concerns to date, the classification problems in Cook's paper may be more general. Further, in all six cases the effect of the misclassifications is to exaggerate Cook et al's conclusions rather than being apparently random errors due to sloppy analysis. Since their conclusions are at best no better than their data, it appears likely that Cook et al's conclusions are exaggerated as well as being unsupported by the evidence that they offer. I have not done an analysis of each of the papers Cook et al. classified, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 19, 2014 10:07PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 20:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 13:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.
[/quote]

No, it's not. I've heard the counter-examples, even if you haven't.
[/quote]

Of course there are a few counter examples. You'll find those on ANY topic. But the fact remains that the great majority of those who accept the scientific findings on AGW also understand the difference between global climate change and specific weather events at varying locations.

As to tommy's question about when we will actually be in a catastrophic situation because of AGW- it depends on when we decide to accept that the problem exists and do something major in reducing carbon emissions. But as long as the lobbying power of Big Energy continues to block regulations that could ease the situation, it is likely that serious consequences will result sooner rather than later.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 19, 2014 10:12PM)
Magnus said:
I gave a link to the source, you should be able to tell us what is wrong with the graphics.


Answer. Nothing is wrong with the graphics. They are very pretty. It is nice to cherry pick and answer , just as many who try and prove their claims. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 19, 2014 10:24PM)
Ok let me ask again. Solutions anyone?

More appropriately what are the solutions? What will those solutions cost? What will the economic impact of said solutions be? How long will it be before the solutions are in place? And finally exactly what can I expect to see as a "fix" once the solutions are in place.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 19, 2014 10:25PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 12:47, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 12:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 11:51, acesover wrote:

If all else fails to convince people. Throw in pretty colors. That usually works. If not then make some sort of graph and throw in some sort of study by some group that supports your theory. That should close the deal. :) Oh and be sure to call the group scientific. :)
[/quote]

So tell me. Where is there an error in the data? Sarcasm and pretense of superiority gets you only so far. What is wrong with the data. I gave a link to the source, you should be able to tell us what is wrong with the graphics.
[/quote]

Exactly, Magnus. He presents NOTHING to contradict that data. The reason being, of course, that he has nothing to contradict it with. Hence the sarcasm and condescension. That's really all that the conspiracy theorists and science deniers have, anyway.
[/quote]

I would not say we have nothing to prove our ideas. It is still cold and colder than it has been in a long time. What more proof do you need.

This article seems to say we have set some record cold temps. http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/coldest-arctic-outbreak-1990s-midwest-south-east-20140103

Just saying. Not a guess or theory just facts. of course I am sure you cam find something to refute this info. Some scientific study of some sort can show that these cold temps were caused by global warming. :) Of course those who claim global warming is a threat and really happening getting paid because they say so. One does not bite the hand that feeds one.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 19, 2014 10:26PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 23:07, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 20:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 13:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.
[/quote]

No, it's not. I've heard the counter-examples, even if you haven't.
[/quote]

Of course there are a few counter examples. You'll find those on ANY topic. But the fact remains that the great majority of those who accept the scientific findings on AGW also understand the difference between global climate change and specific weather events at varying locations.

As to tommy's question about when we will actually be in a catastrophic situation because of AGW- it depends on when we decide to accept that the problem exists and do something major in reducing carbon emissions. But as long as the lobbying power of Big Energy continues to block regulations that could ease the situation, it is likely that serious consequences will result sooner rather than later.
[/quote]

The great majority of AGW proponents don't understand the science any more than the great majority of AGW opponents. They don't "accept the science"; they accept the position.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 19, 2014 10:29PM)
If human-made climate change exists (which seems to be the majority view from the climate scientists), and we know what it is that humans are doing to change the climate, then the logical action seems to be to find ways to do less of those things until technology allows us to do none of those things (or as close to it as will ever be possible.) In other words- everyone should start riding motorcycles because they use way less gas :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 19, 2014 10:38PM)
If human-made climate change exists (which seems to be the majority view from the Climate Oracles). Then good.

Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death

Of the cold summers in the period 1811 to 1817, the year 1816 has gone down in the annals of New England history as "The Year There Was No Summer," the "Poverty Year" and "Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death."

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/history/1816.htm
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 19, 2014 10:57PM)
Those of you who believe in Global Warming put those of us who do not believe in Global Warming as you believe, put us at a distinct disadvantage when trying to make a point. You want us to prove you wrong, while you can only give theory that you are right. You are more or less asking us to prove a negative.

I can say it is colder at this Longitude and latitude then it has ever been before. I could say that is my proof. However you will come up with some explanation to say that is just a temporary condition and means nothing. So you therefore dismiss my proof. However I must accept your theory as truth until I can prove it wrong, even though it is only a theory. Remember the earth was thought to be flat by many scientific minds until proved differently.

Is there some climate change due to human activity? Probably.

Is it as catastrophic as many try and lead us to believe? Probably not.

However all of this makes for a good Sy Fy original movie. :)
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 19, 2014 11:21PM)
The closest thing to a literal translation of the word "karma" is "action." If we know that our actions likely disrupt the climate that "God and Mother Nature intended" then we'll find out eventually where the karma of willfully continuing along this path will take us. Or...
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jan 19, 2014 11:30PM)
I have a feeling that in the future, if nothing is done to minimize the human activities which climate scientists believe lead to global warming and the climate becomes screwed to the point where life as we enjoy it now is severely compromised, the deniers (or their like-minded progeny) will agree that the climate is screwed, but that man-made activity had no part in it. It's God's punishment for homosexuals or pot smokers or something.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 20, 2014 05:07AM)
To those who deny agw, I'd like to hear your opinion on the study funded by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. Certainly [i]their[/i] study would not be biased, right?


Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 20, 2014 05:37AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 23:57, acesover wrote:
Those of you who believe in Global Warming put those of us who do not believe in Global Warming as you believe, put us at a distinct disadvantage when trying to make a point. You want us to prove you wrong, while you can only give theory that you are right. You are more or less asking us to prove a negative.

I can say it is colder at this Longitude and latitude then it has ever been before. I could say that is my proof. However you will come up with some explanation to say that is just a temporary condition and means nothing. So you therefore dismiss my proof. However I must accept your theory as truth until I can prove it wrong, even though it is only a theory. Remember the earth was thought to be flat by many scientific minds until proved differently.

Is there some climate change due to human activity? Probably.

Is it as catastrophic as many try and lead us to believe? Probably not.

However all of this makes for a good Sy Fy original movie. :)
[/quote]

You're not so much being asked to prove a negative as being asked to prove a positive claim of conspiracy (i.e., show that 97% of scientists have conspired to create a global warming hoax). In the absence of proof of such a fantastic claim, the science stands. Because face it, none of us are climate scientists. We rely on experts for practically everything. Who are you, or me, or any average Joe, to tell 97% of those who's job it is to study something (anything) that they are wrong? What qualifies you, the untrained, to tell the experts that they are wrong? What if 97% of scientists agreed that Saturn's rings were composed of ice crystals and 3% denied that there was any ice component to the rings - what would compel you to side with the 3% over the 97%? What if a wealthy group of individuals who denied the claims of ice crystals in Saturn's rings funded their own scientific study, but that study [i]confirmed[/i] the ice crystals? Would you then still side with the 3%? That makes no sense, now does it?


Ron
:)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 20, 2014 06:49AM)
What observable climate change would lead you to conclude that your AGW idea is wrong?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 20, 2014 06:51AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 06:07, R.S. wrote:
To those who deny agw, I'd like to hear your opinion on the study funded by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. Certainly [i]their[/i] study would not be biased, right?


Ron
[/quote]

Almost as ridiculous as the obamacare was a republican idea mantra.

Want to take a crack at my questions?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 20, 2014 07:47AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 07:49, tommy wrote:
What observable climate change would lead you to conclude that your AGW idea is wrong?
[/quote]
I think climate change is probably happening, but that is a very fair question and one that needs to be addressed explicitly.

I have by no means studied this as much as others here have, but certainly if the average mean global temperature has not changed within a statistically relevant confidence interval for say, the last two hundred years, and the same for the dozen or so biomes around the globe, then I would not be too concerned.

However, I generally think participating in these threads is a waste of energy, since it has been explicitly and implicitly stated over and over by posters that even if there were concrete proof of climate change, nothing should be done about it (i.e. God will take care of it, it's a socialist plot, there's nothing we can do, developing countries will never get on board, it's a capitalist plot, humans have no global impact on their environment, etc.) So they aren't really arguing facts or the best way to test a hypothesis, but deciding beforehand that no matter the facts, the course of action should be nothing.

I take pretty much the opposite view. No matter the facts, I think we as a species can only benefit by being careful stewards of the Earth. Which means don't mess it up. Don't pour crap into the oceans and air. Don't think you can bury nuclear materials and it isn't going to bite you in the backside some day. Don't throw coal particles into your lungs. Don't frack and mess up your water aquifer. So really, let's end arguing what is really a pointless debate in my mind, and start looking at what needs to be done so that the next generation doesn't have three eyed frogs in their ponds.

My two cents.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 20, 2014 08:13AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 22:55, rockwall wrote:
Nice cherry picking of your quotes Magnus.
[/quote]

LOL I picked the top two in the article. What's cherry-picking about that?

Did the editorialist cherry pick? Or do you think 100% of the his sample agreed with his thesis.

Weak, rockwall.

But let's look at you big example, Carlin.


[quote]In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.[/quote]

So Carlin says that human activity may increase temperatures, but makes no attempt to quantify it. Guess how he was rated? Yup. "
Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize". My question for Cook is why would he include a paper by an economist with no scientific content. Carlin's paper appears to be a very odd choice.

So, Rockwall, the best you have is an economist making scientific conclusions, objecting that his statement that AGW effects are very small now claiming that Cook misinterpreted how small he really meant.

:)

And you accuse me of cherry-picking.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 08:26AM)
That's not the best I have and you know it. The best I've got is the entire article.

Here you have a 'study' by a climate activist that claims to have categorized peer reviewed studies to try and 'prove' that 97% of scientists agree with what he wants to prove. The author of the blog contacts a number of scientists about how they were categorized and 7 responded that they were mis-categorized. These are the actual authors responding, not some activist trying to twist there studies to make a point. One of the scientists even mentions that the author of the study left out 111 of his papers that would have lowered the score he was seeking.

Now, you can try to argue that the scientists are either lying or wrong, but then, I guess that would make you a science denier.

It's a sham study and these examples prove it.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 20, 2014 08:44AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-18 13:20, Pop Haydn wrote:
98% of scientists agree that Global Warming is real, serious and manmade:

http://huff.to/19CQsmx
[/quote]

Huffington Post? LOL.. What a joke- one of the biggest left wing media spots around that reports everything in favor of the left.

RNK
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 20, 2014 09:03AM)
This is one of those cases where if you attack the source it is bad. It only works when you do it with right wing sources. Please keep up.

I still would like some answers to my questions. Yet they are deftly avoided. No shock.

This is a political debate, not a scientific one. John comes as close to impartial on the subject as anyone here. No coincidence he chooses to educate himself about the subject tirelessly. Good on you John.

Take the polarized politics out of it and I wish we could agree that leaving the earth better than we found it is not a bad thing. I would be PROUD to be part of the generation that managed that. Hell I leave my campsite cleaner than I found it! Why not just apply that theory and we all agree and move to solutions? Those we can debate!
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 20, 2014 10:31AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 08:47, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 07:49, tommy wrote:
What observable climate change would lead you to conclude that your AGW idea is wrong?
[/quote]
I think climate change is probably happening, but that is a very fair question and one that needs to be addressed explicitly.

I have by no means studied this as much as others here have, but certainly if the average mean global temperature has not changed within a statistically relevant confidence interval for say, the last two hundred years, and the same for the dozen or so biomes around the globe, then I would not be too concerned.

However, I generally think participating in these threads is a waste of energy, since it has been explicitly and implicitly stated over and over by posters that even if there were concrete proof of climate change, nothing should be done about it (i.e. God will take care of it, it's a socialist plot, there's nothing we can do, developing countries will never get on board, it's a capitalist plot, humans have no global impact on their environment, etc.) So they aren't really arguing facts or the best way to test a hypothesis, but deciding beforehand that no matter the facts, the course of action should be nothing.

I take pretty much the opposite view. No matter the facts, I think we as a species can only benefit by being careful stewards of the Earth. Which means don't mess it up. Don't pour crap into the oceans and air. Don't think you can bury nuclear materials and it isn't going to bite you in the backside some day. Don't throw coal particles into your lungs. Don't frack and mess up your water aquifer. So really, let's end arguing what is really a pointless debate in my mind, and start looking at what needs to be done so that the next generation doesn't have three eyed frogs in their ponds.

My two cents.
[/quote]

Very good post landmark. Good points. Also- climate is changing- it has changed MANY times since the beginning of the Earth! Even before the existence of man!

RNK
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 20, 2014 10:43AM)
If, as some of those skeptics say, humans are "only" contributing 50% to climate change- doesn't that math indicate that the climate would be changing twice as much as it would on its own? Isn't that... bad?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 20, 2014 11:21AM)
Critter- that would seem to be obvious, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, to some, it apparently isn't.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 20, 2014 11:26AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 09:44, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-18 13:20, Pop Haydn wrote:
98% of scientists agree that Global Warming is real, serious and manmade:

http://huff.to/19CQsmx
[/quote]

Huffington Post? LOL.. What a joke- one of the biggest left wing media spots around that reports everything in favor of the left.


RNK
[/quote]
Here are scientist that disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Who do you believe, or better yet, find something more useful in helping people rather than donate to groups who don't agree if it's cold or warm.

I am a believer that this is a natural occurring event. Earth is constantly changing. A meteor impact can hasten that change. That is more likely than global warming.

Heck, a Nuke War can do this even quicker and this is the most likely to happen. Or maybe a deadly virus?

Dead is Dead, why waste time worrying about it.Go to the beach, Travel, have fun, let others fight over who is right.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 11:28AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 11:43, critter wrote:
If, as some of those skeptics say, humans are "only" contributing 50% to climate change- doesn't that math indicate that the climate would be changing twice as much as it would on its own? Isn't that... bad?

[/quote]

Here is why a scientist feels about the 50% amount Critter. It's got to do with fear mongering and saving face.

"Scafetta: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit.

They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face.

Now they are misleadingly claiming that what they have always claimed was that AGW is quantified as 50+% of the total warming, so that once it will be clearer that AGW can only at most be quantified as 50% (without the "+") of the total warming, they will still claim that they were sufficiently correct.

And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 20, 2014 11:34AM)
Could you please post the link for that Rockwall? I'd be interesting in seeing which websites you're quoting from.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 20, 2014 11:37AM)
I read it. It's still an acknowledgement of the reality of man-made climate change. The only disagreement is in the amount of contribution. So the skeptical estimate is ~50%. That's an effect. Granted, this isn't my science, but perhaps there is some generalizability here.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 11:39AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 12:34, mastermindreader wrote:
Could you please post the link for that Rockwall? I'd be interesting in seeing which websites you're quoting from.
[/quote]

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 11:47AM)
Yes critter, many AGW sceptics do agree that man is probably causing some of the global warming that is happening. The problem is that most don't think that 50% or less of a fraction of a centigrade in warming in the last 100 years is not that big a deal and not a lot to worry about.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 11:48AM)
And since we're talking about peer reviewed papers:

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 20, 2014 11:49AM)
That's what I thought. Populartechnology.net is an anti-AGW blog site with very spurious credentials.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 11:51AM)
Here Bob, I'll give you the chance. Which logical fallacy is that called that you would normally called out if someone used it to describe a left wing site?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 20, 2014 11:52AM)
So this is one of the times it is OK to attack a source? I have so much trouble keeping up.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 11:57AM)
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

Also

Criticism: Popular Technology.net is an AGW "denier" website.
Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we believe there is a scientific hypothesis called anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 20, 2014 11:58AM)
All you need to do is a search on this "source" and you'll find all you need. It's a kind of deceptive name, as well, giving the impression that it is akin to Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. It's not. It's a partisan blog site- hardly a source of objective materials.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 12:03PM)
Yeah, and I'm sure that all the scientists they quote just don't "understand the science" like you do!
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 20, 2014 12:15PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 12:49, mastermindreader wrote:
That's what I thought. Populartechnology.net is an anti-AGW blog site with very spurious credentials.
[/quote]

And Huffington Post is not biased in anyway? lol.... Just goes to show you- anything from the Right is right because whoever writes it is from the Right (wow- what a great tongue twister). Well- this is the same standard for the left. My point- you can't trust anybody anymore. Go to school- take some science classes (Climatology, Paleoclimatology) so you can make an educated guess and understand what you are reading. This is obviously not the case here.

RNK
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 20, 2014 12:36PM)
Everyone is spouting their teams talking points.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 20, 2014 01:03PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 12:26, Dennis Michael wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 09:44, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-18 13:20, Pop Haydn wrote:
98% of scientists agree that Global Warming is real, serious and manmade:

http://huff.to/19CQsmx
[/quote]
Huffington Post? LOL.. What a joke- one of the biggest left wing media spots around that reports everything in favor of the left.


RNK
[/quote]
Here are scientist that disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Who do you believe, or better yet, find something more useful in helping people rather than donate to groups who don't agree if it's cold or warm.

I am a believer that this is a natural occurring event. Earth is constantly changing. A meteor impact can hasten that change. That is more likely than global warming.

Heck, a Nuke War can do this even quicker and this is the most likely to happen. Or maybe a deadly virus?

Dead is Dead, why waste time worrying about it.Go to the beach, Travel, have fun, let others fight over who is right.
[/quote]
Uh, of those 40 names, thirty-five aren't actually involved in a field that studies the climate.

Isn't that sort of like a Doctor of Fine Arts diagnosing you with cancer?
Message: Posted by: TheRaven (Jan 20, 2014 01:07PM)
On a more serious note, As the Director of the Mackinac Island Stone Skipping Hall of Fame (MISSHOF) I presented the below research paper at the organization's annual induction ceremony staged at the Mackinac Island Stone Skipping and Gerplunking Club’s annual Winter Rules Committee meeting on Saturday April 6, 2013 at the Grosse Pointe Hunt Club, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan.

The paper highlights a disturbing correlation between Global Warming and Stone Skipping.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R93H0OcQy8ZlM1QjR5djRyX1U/edit?usp=sharing
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 02:07PM)
Lol

You should be expecting your nobel prize any day now!
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 20, 2014 03:34PM)
Sorry guys, but this line of posts really makes me laugh....Thanks.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 20, 2014 04:01PM)
To clarify: does everyone agree that pollution is bad? We must all agree on that right?
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 20, 2014 04:04PM)
Here in Canada, we don't really debate human's affect on global warming. How to fix/stop that is another story and that is certainly debated. I wonder how much this of this debate is a USA thing. Similarly, any "controversy" about evolution seems to be a USA inter-debate as us Canadians also take this pretty much as uncontroversial fact. It's interesting to hear of the doubt over science that exists south of the border.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 20, 2014 04:45PM)
To the elite the pollution is you! You are the enemy! That is what this scam is all about. Population Control and in more ways than one.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 20, 2014 04:48PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:04, Scott Burton wrote:
Here in Canada, we don't really debate human's affect on global warming. How to fix/stop that is another story and that is certainly debated. I wonder how much this of this debate is a USA thing. Similarly, any "controversy" about evolution seems to be a USA inter-debate as us Canadians also take this pretty much as uncontroversial fact. It's interesting to hear of the doubt over science that exists south of the border.
[/quote]

That's not surprising, Scott. Only in the US is this a political issue rather than a scientific one. The science, as in evolution, appears to be pretty well settled. It's just that those who will lose profits due to corrective measures have a powerful influence over the Republican party.

The rest of the civilized world pretty much accepts the science.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (Jan 20, 2014 06:32PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 11:51, acesover wrote:

If all else fails to convince people. Throw in pretty colors. That usually works. If not then make some sort of graph and throw in some sort of study by some group that supports your theory. That should close the deal. :) Oh and be sure to call the group scientific. :)
[/quote]

And insults. Don't forget the condescending insults.

What I enjoy is how, when the predictions of 15 years ago did not come to fruition, they changed the term from "global warming" to "climate change". Pretty much covers all the bases!
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 20, 2014 07:25PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 07:51, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 06:07, R.S. wrote:
To those who deny agw, I'd like to hear your opinion on the study funded by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. Certainly [i]their[/i] study would not be biased, right?


Ron
[/quote]

Almost as ridiculous as the obamacare was a republican idea mantra.

[/quote]

Why is it ridiculous? Do you agree with the conclusion of the Koch brother's study? Why or why not? And why are all the agw deniers avoiding the question?

PS - http://ivn.us/2013/09/27/obamacare-was-originally-proposed-by-republicans/


Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 20, 2014 07:41PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:04, Scott Burton wrote:
It's interesting to hear of the doubt over science that exists south of the border.
[/quote]

Oh, you have no idea! :)

Ron
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 20, 2014 07:56PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 12:49, mastermindreader wrote:
That's what I thought. Populartechnology.net is an anti-AGW blog site with very spurious credentials.
[/quote]

OMG. Lets see what Huffington post says instead. :)

You ask for a source. He gives it. Then you belittle it. Why even ask?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 20, 2014 09:30PM)
Why not respond with a credible site? This isn't science.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 09:32PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:04, Scott Burton wrote:
Here in Canada, we don't really debate human's affect on global warming. How to fix/stop that is another story and that is certainly debated. I wonder how much this of this debate is a USA thing. Similarly, any "controversy" about evolution seems to be a USA inter-debate as us Canadians also take this pretty much as uncontroversial fact. It's interesting to hear of the doubt over science that exists south of the border.
[/quote]

While it may seem to the uninformed, that this debate is limited to the US, you'll actually be able to find any number of peer reviewed papers written by scientists not within the US that support skeptics arguments about the AGW Alarm if you wish to peruse the list given here.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 10:15PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:04, Scott Burton wrote:
Here in Canada, we don't really debate human's affect on global warming. How to fix/stop that is another story and that is certainly debated. I wonder how much this of this debate is a USA thing. Similarly, any "controversy" about evolution seems to be a USA inter-debate as us Canadians also take this pretty much as uncontroversial fact. It's interesting to hear of the doubt over science that exists south of the border.
[/quote]

A bit more.

Despite Bob’s usual condescending conclusion about climate skepticism being primarily a US phenomenon, he should appreciate this article as it’s published in what he would normally find an irrefutable source; The HuffingtonPost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/climate-change-skepticism-poll_n_1939846.html
“Climate Change Skepticism Is Highest In Japan, Britain and U.S., Poll Finds”

Of course, you can find climate skepticism throughout the world as a quick search finds the following sites in various parts of the world.

In England, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
http://www.thegwpf.org/

In Australia, they have their own party.
http://www.climate-sceptics.com.au/

Europe seems to be re-thinking their policies regarding green energy.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html

Yes, even in Canada, you can find skeptics!
http://www.friendsofscience.org/

So, not to worry. Skepticism is alive and well throughout the world and not, as Bob would have you believe, limited to the US.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 20, 2014 10:18PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 22:30, Pop Haydn wrote:
Why not respond with a credible site? This isn't science.


[/quote]

That would be difficult Pop as any site that disagreed with you, you would not find credible and you would label it as 'not science'. Instead of repeating Bob's ad hominem attack on the site, why not attempt to address the argument instead.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 21, 2014 07:09AM)
I still don't get the point of all of this. I think we can agree that we should reduce our pollution levels. Even if pollution is not a climate changer, you can't say that pollution is a good thing or even neutral to the environment right?

You can certainly find web sites to support all kinds of positions. But, again, I fail to see the point unless you think that our use of the planet is sustainable.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 21, 2014 07:14AM)
Do you think that our use of the planet and it's resources are sustainable? Perhaps I should ask.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 21, 2014 07:22AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:48, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:04, Scott Burton wrote:
Here in Canada, we don't really debate human's affect on global warming. How to fix/stop that is another story and that is certainly debated. I wonder how much this of this debate is a USA thing. Similarly, any "controversy" about evolution seems to be a USA inter-debate as us Canadians also take this pretty much as uncontroversial fact. It's interesting to hear of the doubt over science that exists south of the border.
[/quote]

That's not surprising, Scott. Only in the US is this a political issue rather than a scientific one. The science, as in evolution, appears to be pretty well settled. It's just that those who will lose profits due to corrective measures have a powerful influence over the Republican party.

The rest of the civilized world pretty much accepts the science.
[/quote]

I blame people who hold on to non evidence-based thinking.

I won't name the group.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 08:49AM)
The Delphi Technique is a tool which can used to manufacture a desired consensus of opinion, such as 98% scientists agree. Professor Climate-gate and the Oracles have used or rather abused The Delphi Technique from the beginning to manufacture their desired consensus of opinion and prophesies ; That which the believing alarmist are so fond of spouting about. The leading experts in The Delphi Technique Abuse seem to be based at two foundations: The Institute of the Future and The Future Foundation. I certainly recommend these two firms to anyone in business, as they are simply brilliantly cleaver at marketing anything.

http://futurefoundation.net/thebigliebook/

http://www.iftf.org/home/
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 21, 2014 08:56AM)
Yes Scott, pollution bad, clean air good.

Is our use of the planet and it's resources sustainable? I'm not completely sure what you mean by this question. If nothing ever changes? For how long? Was our use of horses for transportation sustainable? Did it change? Why did it change?

Here, I'll ask you a question. Is making outrageous claims about the climate to create fear in the populace a proper technique to get them to do what you want them to do and to accept much higher energy prices?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 09:09AM)
Nature gives us good and bad. i.e. Summer and Winter. See The Lion King for more information.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 21, 2014 09:14AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 09:56, rockwall wrote:

Here, I'll ask you a question. Is making outrageous claims about the climate to create fear in the populace a proper technique to get them to do what you want them to do and to accept much higher energy prices?

[/quote]

How about making outrageous claims to create fear of death and pay alms?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 21, 2014 09:25AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:48, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:04, Scott Burton wrote:
Here in Canada, we don't really debate human's affect on global warming. How to fix/stop that is another story and that is certainly debated. I wonder how much this of this debate is a USA thing. Similarly, any "controversy" about evolution seems to be a USA inter-debate as us Canadians also take this pretty much as uncontroversial fact. It's interesting to hear of the doubt over science that exists south of the border.
[/quote]

That's not surprising, Scott. Only in the US is this a political issue rather than a scientific one. The science, as in evolution, appears to be pretty well settled. It's just that those who will lose profits due to corrective measures have a powerful influence over the Republican party.

The rest of the civilized world pretty much accepts the science.
[/quote]

Political issue because thankfully the Republican Party wants to help the average US citizen not be taxed anymore for a bunk science that cannot be proven. At least one side can realize we are taxed so much already, especially given that our income tax returns this year will already be 1.5% to 2% less because of Obamacare. If only the Democratic Party would realize that increased government revenue does not come from increasing taxes the US would be in much better shape.

RNK
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 21, 2014 09:27AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 23:15, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:04, Scott Burton wrote:
Here in Canada, we don't really debate human's affect on global warming. How to fix/stop that is another story and that is certainly debated. I wonder how much this of this debate is a USA thing. Similarly, any "controversy" about evolution seems to be a USA inter-debate as us Canadians also take this pretty much as uncontroversial fact. It's interesting to hear of the doubt over science that exists south of the border.
[/quote]

A bit more.

Despite Bob’s usual condescending conclusion about climate skepticism being primarily a US phenomenon, he should appreciate this article as it’s published in what he would normally find an irrefutable source; The HuffingtonPost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/climate-change-skepticism-poll_n_1939846.html
“Climate Change Skepticism Is Highest In Japan, Britain and U.S., Poll Finds”

Of course, you can find climate skepticism throughout the world as a quick search finds the following sites in various parts of the world.

In England, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
http://www.thegwpf.org/

In Australia, they have their own party.
http://www.climate-sceptics.com.au/

Europe seems to be re-thinking their policies regarding green energy.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html

Yes, even in Canada, you can find skeptics!
http://www.friendsofscience.org/

So, not to worry. Skepticism is alive and well throughout the world and not, as Bob would have you believe, limited to the US.


[/quote]

Thanks Rockwall! Further proving my point that Global Warming is not a proven theory.

I suppose Bob will say all these sources are not credible but the Huffington Post is.

RNK
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 21, 2014 09:28AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 22:30, Pop Haydn wrote:
Why not respond with a credible site? This isn't science.


[/quote]

And the Huffington Post is? lol.

RNK
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 21, 2014 09:39AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 23:15, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:04, Scott Burton wrote:
Here in Canada, we don't really debate human's affect on global warming. How to fix/stop that is another story and that is certainly debated. I wonder how much this of this debate is a USA thing. Similarly, any "controversy" about evolution seems to be a USA inter-debate as us Canadians also take this pretty much as uncontroversial fact. It's interesting to hear of the doubt over science that exists south of the border.
[/quote]

A bit more.

Despite Bob’s usual condescending conclusion about climate skepticism being primarily a US phenomenon, he should appreciate this article as it’s published in what he would normally find an irrefutable source; The HuffingtonPost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/climate-change-skepticism-poll_n_1939846.html
“Climate Change Skepticism Is Highest In Japan, Britain and U.S., Poll Finds”

Of course, you can find climate skepticism throughout the world as a quick search finds the following sites in various parts of the world.

In England, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
http://www.thegwpf.org/

In Australia, they have their own party.
http://www.climate-sceptics.com.au/

Europe seems to be re-thinking their policies regarding green energy.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html

Yes, even in Canada, you can find skeptics!
http://www.friendsofscience.org/

So, not to worry. Skepticism is alive and well throughout the world and not, as Bob would have you believe, limited to the US.


[/quote]

Could you be more disingenuous? The claim (and I have no position on whether it is correct) is that "Here in Canada, we don't really debate human's affect on global warming. How to fix/stop that is another story and that is certainly debated." None of your links (did you actually read them this time?) addresses the question.

The claim may or may not be true (reading it as a "generally..." statement, not as "not a single person disagrees..." statement).

But in the end, this is all smoke and mirrors. Is human activity having an effect on global climate or not? If it is, what is the ethically appropriate response?

Of course, those questions require considerable thought and commitment. Much easier to post dubious links, I know.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 21, 2014 09:50AM)
The scheme is simple:
Find a controversial issue choose a side and them pay them millions as long as the masses believe in it.
How many ex/vice presidents made millions over global warming.
LOL
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 21, 2014 09:59AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 10:50, Dennis Michael wrote:
The scheme is simple:
Find a controversial issue choose a side and them pay them millions as long as the masses believe in it.
How many ex/vice presidents made millions over global warming.
LOL
[/quote]

Got names. Got evidence? I'd love to see it.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 21, 2014 12:09PM)
How about Al gore for starters.

I really could care less but investing in Global Warming is very profitable. So is speeches.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/al-gores-net-worth-green-energy_n_1961299.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-pushes-global-warming-for-personal-profit
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/al-gores-global-warming-desperation/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/al-gores-incredible-shrinking-climate-change-footprint
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60301
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/02/nyt-admits-gore-making-fortune-global-warming
http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/global-warming


[img]http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/culture/2006/07/11/proof_of_global_warming499x280.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 21, 2014 12:23PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 13:09, Dennis Michael wrote:
How about Al gore for starters.

I really could care less but investing in Global Warming is very profitable. So is speeches.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/al-gores-net-worth-green-energy_n_1961299.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-pushes-global-warming-for-personal-profit
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/al-gores-global-warming-desperation/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/al-gores-incredible-shrinking-climate-change-footprint
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60301
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/02/nyt-admits-gore-making-fortune-global-warming
http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/global-warming


[img]http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/culture/2006/07/11/proof_of_global_warming499x280.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

:applause: :applause: :applause:
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 21, 2014 12:38PM)
So it looks like the answer to "how many?" is "maybe kind of one."
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 21, 2014 12:40PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 13:09, Dennis Michael wrote:
How about Al gore for starters.

I really could care less but investing in Global Warming is very profitable. So is speeches.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/al-gores-net-worth-green-energy_n_1961299.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-pushes-global-warming-for-personal-profit
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/al-gores-global-warming-desperation/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/al-gores-incredible-shrinking-climate-change-footprint
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60301
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/02/nyt-admits-gore-making-fortune-global-warming
http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/global-warming


[img]http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/culture/2006/07/11/proof_of_global_warming499x280.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Not one of them shows that Gore "made money from Global warming." He made money by buying and selling companies. As the first article notes, some of his investments were not successful. Even you can see the difference.

The really big money Gore made was by selling a TV station. And he definitely makes money from public speaking.

How is he different from Romney, or any other businessman?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 12:42PM)
The Butterfly Effect is a term used in Chaos Theory to describe how tiny variations can affect giant systems, and complex systems, like weather patterns. The term butterfly effect was applied in Chaos Theory to suggest that the wing movements of a butterfly might have significant repercussions on wind strength and movements throughout the weather systems of the world, and theoretically, could cause tornadoes halfway around the world.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 21, 2014 01:08PM)
Theoretically. In reality, the the weight of probability and of other millions of tiny influencers washes the impact away.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 01:51PM)
As a betting man, I look for what they call statistical significances in happenings, which are things that happen which are probably not simply down to chance. My money is on that there is nothing extraordinary about a 0.8 warming of 1 degree since 1880. We know climate changes over time and for it to change a fraction of 1 degree is of no significance whatsoever. All this idea that its a trend and all this alarmist prophesy is nonsense. What covering up with it is what really fear and that is ever growing population now approaching 7 billion. Up from 2 billion a hundred ago. The politicians never mention that as it's vote loser you see.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-eJ_pvgOCU
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 21, 2014 02:05PM)
Well, regardless of the causes of climate change, I'd think it's in our best interests to see if we can find a way to do something about it. At least if we intend for humanity to stick around for a few generations longer, anyway.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 02:30PM)
Have you ever wondered what would happen if climate stopped changing?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 21, 2014 02:41PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 13:40, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 13:09, Dennis Michael wrote:
How about Al gore for starters.

I really could care less but investing in Global Warming is very profitable. So is speeches.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/al-gores-net-worth-green-energy_n_1961299.html
http://www.examiner.com/article/al-gore-pushes-global-warming-for-personal-profit
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/al-gores-global-warming-desperation/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/al-gores-incredible-shrinking-climate-change-footprint
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60301
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/02/nyt-admits-gore-making-fortune-global-warming
http://newsbusters.org/node/11149
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/global-warming


[img]http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/culture/2006/07/11/proof_of_global_warming499x280.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Not one of them shows that Gore "made money from Global warming." He made money by buying and selling companies. As the first article notes, some of his investments were not successful. Even you can see the difference.

The really big money Gore made was by selling a TV station. And he definitely makes money from public speaking.

How is he different from Romney, or any other businessman?
[/quote]

He's not- so don't chide Republicans for their wealth when Gore and all other democrats are the same! That's the problem- there is always a double standard when it doesn't apply/benefit liberals. But when it does- it's ok just as you have stated and proved this point in your previous post.

Not to mention- the net average worth of the Democrat congressman/woman is 1.4 million. The net worth of the average Republican congressman/woman is 1 million.... I am diligently trying to find the source I read this from because I know it's a pretty exposing statement. Hopefully I do and will definitely post it.

Bottom line- they ALL are crooks. One really isn't better than the other. Only one side wants to keep capitalism and taxes somewhat low while the other wants more control (social justice) and higher taxes to support their social programs which get profusely abused and taken advantage of.


RNK
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 21, 2014 03:18PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 15:41, RNK wrote:


He's not- so don't chide Republicans for their wealth when Gore and all other democrats are the same! That's the problem- there is always a double standard when it doesn't apply/benefit liberals. But when it does- it's ok just as you have stated and proved this point in your previous post.



RNK
[/quote]

Whose double standard? Did anyone in this discussion chide anyone other than Al Gore? If the double standard fits...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 04:00PM)
I have come to think of this quaint trend in trusting experts as a harmony. Simply believe and agree and go along with whatever the experts say and peace and tranquilly is assured. If only the denies had gone along with the government experts on eugenics think of all trouble that would have saved.

What is wrong with exploited the shoddy global warming hypothesis to make money anyway?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 21, 2014 04:12PM)
I was just outside Northeast Pa. It is 12 degrees above 0 (Fahrenheit). Even if Global warming kicks in it would only be 11.2 degrees above 0...honestly I don't see much of a difference. :)

Of course the above may seem silly. Having said that, I hope you see how silly your side of this global warming is. .8 of a degree since 1880. :) Also maybe the measuring devise used in 1880 was off. It could actually be a bit warmer or colder. :)

As stated above this post is silly. But as I also said before it could make for a great Sy FY movie.

Not to go off topic but I feel we should worry more about Morality and where are culture is headed than Global Warming.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 04:12PM)
Yes so what if it does take away the rights of the people in a draconian manner and tax all of them exorbitantly?

:)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 21, 2014 04:14PM)
There is no point in arguing science with those who choose not to even try to understand, having received their entire knowledge of science on Fox news and right-wing web blogs.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 21, 2014 04:19PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 17:14, mastermindreader wrote:
There is no point in arguing science with those who choose not to even try to understand, having received their entire knowledge of science on Fox news and right-wing web blogs.
[/quote]Yep. Scientists may agree, but the people on this board never will.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 04:37PM)
Is the Earth hotter or colder now than when it was formed?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 21, 2014 04:44PM)
How much money somebody has is not a valid measure of their character. What they've done to get and still do to keep that money might be.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 04:47PM)
I know! Lets dig an hole to the centre of the Earth and see if it's hotter or colder there than the surface. If it is hotter there in the centre than it is on the surface, then we will all know that it is getting colder.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 21, 2014 04:49PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 17:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 17:14, mastermindreader wrote:
There is no point in arguing science with those who choose not to even try to understand, having received their entire knowledge of science on Fox news and right-wing web blogs.
[/quote]Yep. Scientists may agree, but the people on this board never will.
[/quote]

Are these the same sort of scientists that claimed the world was flat? I mean how many scientific communities are there? I believ3e they said don't sail out to far or you will fall off the edge. Now the sky is falling in the form of Global Warming.

Who knows maybe they will get it right this time. Nut not in your or my life time or the next 20 generations. I do not believe that Global Warming is going to end this world of ours. But here in the U.S. we can definitely be taxed to death before Global Warming sets in. Are the ill effects of Global Warming covered by Obamacare?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 21, 2014 04:51PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 17:14, mastermindreader wrote:
There is no point in arguing science with those who choose not to even try to understand, having received their entire knowledge of science on Fox news and right-wing web blogs.
[/quote]

We should follow those who believe all they read in the Huffington Post and the left wing blogs. :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 04:52PM)
Global warming is an inescapable issue for our age. But 180 years ago, most scientists believed that Earth had been steadily cooling since it was formed. When Louis Agassiz presented the concept of a Great Ice Age to the Swiss Society of Natural Sciences in 1837, his suggestion that the planet had turned colder and then warmed up again was met with skepticism and even hostility, triggering years of fierce scientific debate before the idea was accepted.

http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 21, 2014 05:15PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 17:52, tommy wrote:
Global warming is an inescapable issue for our age. But 180 years ago, most scientists believed that Earth had been steadily cooling since it was formed. When Louis Agassiz presented the concept of a Great Ice Age to the Swiss Society of Natural Sciences in 1837, his suggestion that the planet had turned colder and then warmed up again was met with skepticism and even hostility, triggering years of fierce scientific debate before the idea was accepted.

http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/
[/quote]

Funny how paying attention to the evidence allows scientists to revise their views.

It's probably a practice worthy of emulation.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 05:28PM)
The scientist Wolfgang Pauli was known for his often less than polite criticism of the work of some of his colleagues. He would sometimes exclaim "wrong" or "completely wrong" when he disagreed with someone. He even sadly said, "It is not even wrong". The phrase "not even wrong" carries two different connotations. A theory can be "not even wrong" because it is so incomplete and ill-defined that it can't be used to make firm predictions whose failure would show it to be wrong. This has been the situation of man made global warming/climate change theory from its beginnings to the present day.

http://www.la-soiree.com/
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 21, 2014 05:54PM)
Bit of trivia: It was actually widely accepted that the world is round long before Columbus set sail on his dastardly voyage. That most people believed otherwise is a myth.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 06:01PM)
You believers have a good education but you better stop believing or your lives will end in stupidity.

:)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 21, 2014 06:04PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 18:54, critter wrote:
Bit of trivia: It was actually widely accepted that the world is round long before Columbus set sail on his dastardly voyage. That most people believed otherwise is a myth.
[/quote]

What is your point? Who said anything about Columbus besides yourself?

Is that just some trivia that has nothing to do with the topic?

If so just some more trivia many thought the sun was the center of the universe. So what?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 06:15PM)
Most people in Columbus (70%) believe global warming is happening. One in five (18%) believe it is not. - See more at:
http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/climate-change-in-the-columbus-ohioan-mind/#sthash.DkiuqjkS.dpuf

In the meantime

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The city of Columbus is opening warming centers at local recreation centers.

Mayor Michael Coleman urged residents to take precautions and stay indoors during the extreme temperatures over the next few days.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 21, 2014 06:34PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 19:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 18:54, critter wrote:
Bit of trivia: It was actually widely accepted that the world is round long before Columbus set sail on his dastardly voyage. That most people believed otherwise is a myth.
[/quote]

What is your point? Who said anything about Columbus besides yourself?

Is that just some trivia that has nothing to do with the topic?

If so just some more trivia many thought the sun was the center of the universe. So what?
[/quote]

It has everything to do with your claim that scientists thought the world was flat. What scientists? How many? Was this the consensus or was it two or three guys? When was this theory revised? Why was it revised? Do you actually mean philosophers? Do you just need a hug? I do. And a nap. Do you like sardines?

I can tell you that at one point in time (at least by Columbus' time) the flat-world theory was not the standard. Similarly, climate change theories have evolved to include new findings. It's not "global warming" anymore. That has been replaced because data. Just as other theories evolve to include new information. There is a huge difference in taking a theory based on volumes of data and comparing it to one that people made up when there was no data. If you're going to compare them then you need to prove why that's a valid comparison. Or revise it. Because science.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 21, 2014 07:05PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 18:15, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 17:52, tommy wrote:
Global warming is an inescapable issue for our age. But 180 years ago, most scientists believed that Earth had been steadily cooling since it was formed. When Louis Agassiz presented the concept of a Great Ice Age to the Swiss Society of Natural Sciences in 1837, his suggestion that the planet had turned colder and then warmed up again was met with skepticism and even hostility, triggering years of fierce scientific debate before the idea was accepted.

http://www.technologyreview.com/article/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/
[/quote]

Funny how paying attention to the evidence allows scientists to revise their views.

It's probably a practice worthy of emulation.
[/quote]

Yes that is all well and good but it's not so funny for the people who have died etcetera as a result of scientists false views in the meantime is it? Their views alone in this case are having real effects.

The problem with this climate change is there is no evidence that will change their mind. Hell can freez over and they will say, well that's climate change for you.

Mind you it does reduce the population and so I guess the end justifies the means.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 22, 2014 12:58AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 19:34, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 19:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 18:54, critter wrote:
Bit of trivia: It was actually widely accepted that the world is round long before Columbus set sail on his dastardly voyage. That most people believed otherwise is a myth.
[/quote]

What is your point? Who said anything about Columbus besides yourself?

Is that just some trivia that has nothing to do with the topic?

If so just some more trivia many thought the sun was the center of the universe. So what?
[/quote]

It has everything to do with your claim that scientists thought the world was flat. What scientists? How many? Was this the consensus or was it two or three guys? When was this theory revised? Why was it revised? Do you actually mean philosophers? Do you just need a hug? I do. And a nap. Do you like sardines?

I can tell you that at one point in time (at least by Columbus' time) the flat-world theory was not the standard. Similarly, climate change theories have evolved to include new findings. It's not "global warming" anymore. That has been replaced because data. Just as other theories evolve to include new information. There is a huge difference in taking a theory based on volumes of data and comparing it to one that people made up when there was no data. If you're going to compare them then you need to prove why that's a valid comparison. Or revise it. Because science.
[/quote]

I read your response and got a terrible headache. Anyway I hate sardines.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 22, 2014 01:13AM)
I got codeine!
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 22, 2014 01:20AM)
http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/15/urgent-need-address-climate-change/
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 22, 2014 01:22AM)
Even the Greeks of the classical era knew the world was round. The idea that there were "scientists" who thought it was flat is a complete myth. But myths are frequently accepted by those who get headaches trying to understand facts.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 22, 2014 01:23AM)
When an old fisherman says, “We used to go out at low tide and gather a bucket of clams, but now there’s no low tide, only high tide and higher tide,” it’s compelling. The mayor of a small seaside town tells of repeated storm damage to seawalls that costs more to repair than the community can bear. Coastal towns contemplate raising houses or moving them above anticipated new sea levels. The anecdotes add up to an overwhelming warning that social, economic and ecological costs are rapidly mounting and we must take climate change seriously. As one person says, “If you don’t believe it, just look out the window.”

http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/15/urgent-need-address-climate-change/
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 22, 2014 05:28AM)
A lot of it simply comes down to people's aversion to, and ignorance of, "science." In a country where something like 46% shockingly hold the view that the earth is just 6,000 years old (an error of the same magnitude as saying the distance from New York to Los Angeles is about 20 feet), it's no surprise that "science" is scoffed at by many. They see it as a threat to their worldview. But science is a dynamic process, not a static "worldview" in and of itself. And the fact that scientists can be wrong is seen by many as an indication that science can't be "trusted", when in fact we should recognize that with intellectual honesty comes the likelihood of occasionally being wrong, which then allows us to make revisions in the name of progress. It's the most "trustworthy" endeavor there is. Remember, the only thing that reliably corrects for bad science is good science. Anyway, I'm afraid that until that 46% figure is greatly reduced, there will be all sorts of misguided notions on many topics.


Ron
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 22, 2014 06:57AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 17:14, mastermindreader wrote:
There is no point in arguing science with those who choose not to even try to understand, having received their entire knowledge of science on Fox news and right-wing web blogs.
[/quote]

Expected and common answer from the left.

I am sure CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, and many other are absolutely right. Al Sharpton on MSNBC tops the list of accurate reporting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States
Six stations rule the news, five are left one is right. Own the stations you own the news.

[img]http://www.sott.net/image/image/s1/37034/full/marklawson_ice_ages.jpg[/img]

I'm sure history is in error. We are in the warming faze which hasn't peaked yet. Give it another hundred years.

http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-Changes/ipcc-faq-natural-causes-of-ice-ages-and-climate-change.html

These people are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.

[img]http://co2now.org/images/stories/ipcc/ar4-wg1/faq_6.1_fig_1_milankovitch_cycles_orbital_changes.gif[/img]

Tilt and orbit have nothing to do with global warming!

http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_divisions/geosciences/marine_geology_and_paleontology/research_themes/chronostratigraphy/

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Precession_and_seasons.jpg[/img]

The past, present and future.

Who do you believe??????
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 22, 2014 07:34AM)
Why don't we just all agree that pollution is "bad" and that we should work to reduce our negative effects on the world. If you don't think human caused global warming is a real thing, just call it "making our air cleaner".

We (Canada) are having a big debate now about the Alberta oil sands. The debate is the preserving economic development vs. protecting the environment. There is a recognition by many that we can't just stop these massive projects without big losses in jobs and other economic indicators. The debate is about striking a balance between the two and here is where it gets political. The debate is never about the science and the science doesn't get into political debate.

Yes, this is all "generally speaking" and there will always be groups who debate such things. But, as above, I say we work to clean up the earth regardless of global warming - even if that is fake or whatever.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 22, 2014 07:55AM)
Dennis-

The people (scientists) you cavalierly refer to as "idiots" learned about tilt, orbit and the precession of the equinoxes while they were still in grade school, like most of us did. Those things don't account for AGW part of climate change, despite your insistence on it.

As I have said, science isn't something that is learned by watching FOX news and reading bought and paid for "research" papers by the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing think tanks - and financed by those who would lose profits if they actually had to stop polluting the atmosphere.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 08:02AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 07:57, Dennis Michael wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-21 17:14, mastermindreader wrote:
There is no point in arguing science with those who choose not to even try to understand, having received their entire knowledge of science on Fox news and right-wing web blogs.
[/quote]

Expected and common answer from the left.

I am sure CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, and many other are absolutely right. Al Sharpton on MSNBC tops the list of accurate reporting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States
Six stations rule the news, five are left one is right. Own the stations you own the news.

[img]http://www.sott.net/image/image/s1/37034/full/marklawson_ice_ages.jpg[/img]

I'm sure history is in error. We are in the warming faze which hasn't peaked yet. Give it another hundred years.

http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-Changes/ipcc-faq-natural-causes-of-ice-ages-and-climate-change.html

These people are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.

[img]http://co2now.org/images/stories/ipcc/ar4-wg1/faq_6.1_fig_1_milankovitch_cycles_orbital_changes.gif[/img]

Tilt and orbit have nothing to do with global warming!

http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_divisions/geosciences/marine_geology_and_paleontology/research_themes/chronostratigraphy/

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Precession_and_seasons.jpg[/img]

The past, present and future.

Who do you believe??????
[/quote]

I believe that you either don't understand the issue, or that you are being deliberately deceptive.

No climate scientist is claiming that the earth's climate does not change as a result of natural processes. Read any of the literature cited, including the IPCC report and you will see all the things you mentioned, and many, many more.

The issue is whether human activity is ONE of the causal factors. Consensus is that it is. The moral/political question then becomes: what should we do about our contribution to climate change?

Seriously, though, if you read any of the literature cited, you'd know that.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 22, 2014 08:07AM)
John, I seriously doubt that has read ANY of the cited literature.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 22, 2014 08:26AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 02:23, Pop Haydn wrote:
When an old fisherman says, “We used to go out at low tide and gather a bucket of clams, but now there’s no low tide, only high tide and higher tide,” it’s compelling. The mayor of a small seaside town tells of repeated storm damage to seawalls that costs more to repair than the community can bear. Coastal towns contemplate raising houses or moving them above anticipated new sea levels. The anecdotes add up to an overwhelming warning that social, economic and ecological costs are rapidly mounting and we must take climate change seriously. As one person says, “If you don’t believe it, just look out the window.”

http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/15/urgent-need-address-climate-change/
[/quote]

Nice Pop. A movie full of anecdotal evidence. I'm sure all the 'believers in science' here will all cheer on this important documentary.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 22, 2014 09:45AM)
Again, who really cares, nothing is going to happen for at least 10,000 years. This whole topic is laughable. And yes there is satire in my last post. And yes, I read most of the articles, just because I expected that reply, about reading them.

I am more likely to die by a viral infection, an auto accident, a slip in the snow, a shark attack, a bee sting, etc. then by global warming.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 22, 2014 09:59AM)
No the issue is NOT whether human activity is ONE of the causal factors, the issue IS whether human activity is a SIGNIFICANT ONE. You farting is ONE causal factor but it may or may not be a SIGNIFICANT ONE.

I believe that you either don't understand the issue, or that you are being deliberately deceptive.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 22, 2014 10:06AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 10:45, Dennis Michael wrote:
Again, who really cares, nothing is going to happen for at least 10,000 years.
[/quote]

This strikes me as being rather selfish. Let's say you're right that nothing will happen for at least 10,000 years. I still say that is a good reason to think of the future generations. We have a moral obligation to protect the planet for them.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 22, 2014 10:10AM)
Sure- who cares what happens after we're all dead and gone? Screw that "good stewardship" BS. (But you might want to know a couple of zeros off of your potshot prediction.)
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 22, 2014 10:18AM)
Global Warming, like the Kobayashi Maru Scenario is a "No-Win Scenario". It will forever have two sides like Abortion and Religion, as well as politics.

Like in the War Games, (Tic, Tac, Toe), the only way to win is "not play the game".

Tommy have you considered Elephant's farts?

[quote]deliberately deceptive[/quote]

Don't know what this means other than point a fact and state another conflicting one, which is by the way, what this discussion is about.

Fact/Counter Fact, *** Libs, *** Repubs., *** media, *** news reporters, *** facts, you're wrong/I'm right and it goes on and on.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 22, 2014 10:19AM)
If all the farts in all the world have caused a fraction of one fraction of one degree warming since 1880 and the Sun caused the fraction left over, then how significant are farts, would be the question and could stop farting even if they were a significant factor. The question would not be whether or not a fart was a factor.

Why don't we just all agree that pollution is "bad" and that we are the cause and work to reduce our negative effects on the world by reducing our number? Do the math!

Good stewards know when to cull the herd.

Look left to see how it is done.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 22, 2014 10:32AM)
Normal flatus volume range is around 476 to 1491ml per 24 hours

Here is the Math:
7.046 billion people fart times 1000ml a day is 7046 billion ml a day of methane gas is having a green house effect, not counting animals. Buy Beano and help reduce global warming.

Give up driving gas cars, using oil heat, fireplaces, boats, ships, bombs, etc., all in the name of saving the earth from global warming. I don't think so. Just blame business.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 22, 2014 10:35AM)
Want some money?

Help us bring the issues of population and sustainability to life!



There are already quite a few videos about population on our YouTube channel but there is always room for more.

We’re looking for inspiring videos to help explain why population matters. We’ll be giving cash prizes and plenty of publicity to whoever comes up with the best videos.

How it works

http://www.populationmatters.org/video-contest/
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 22, 2014 11:42AM)
Again...let's push the global warming concept aside and just be responsible citizens of planet earth. Little improvements in how we live do add up. Consume less, recycle more, car pool, ride your bike more, find alternative sources of energy, turn off your lights, use less chemicals, etc. One tiny action repeated by many people does make a difference. Even if you debate whether such actions even make a significant difference or overcome the destruction we've already done, I feel a sense of responsibility that we should at least try. I'm still confused why there is so much resistance to making changes today to take care of future generations. We are all responsible for our part.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 22, 2014 12:17PM)
The problem, Scott, is that Big Energy employs high powered lobbyists, PR personnel and so-called "think tanks" to discourage people from doing the very things you suggest. They WANT you to consume more, drive more, burn more fuel, use more chemicals and build up energy bills. It's all about profit and has nothing to do with conserving and protecting the environment.

The reasonable steps you've outlined, if successful, would mean they'd have to change their way of doing business and would cost them money. It's the same reasoning BP used prior to the Gulf fiasco. Cut corners, sell more, make more money.

And in order to do that, you first need to convince the public that AGW is a myth and that there is no problem, because "no problem" means there's nothing to fix. And nothing to fix means bigger profits. It's important to them, therefore, to discredit legitimate science by mocking it and calling it a conspiracy, much in the same way that Big Tobacco (using the same lobbyists and "think tanks") convinced the public for years that cigarettes were harmless. In the early days, in fact, they actually used phony doctors in their advertisements to create the impression that smoking was actually good for you! Those who opposed it were characterized as zany "alarmists" who would deny personal freedoms and trample the tobacco industry's right to engage in unfettered (and unregulated) free enterprise. Sound familiar?

That's all this is about. And, I'm afraid, there is nothing that can be done about it in the immediate future because big money and big energy have persuaded nearly half of the American people to ignore science and to believe them instead.* (see note below) It will be left to the next generation and their children to finally realize the scope of the problem and take action- just as it happened with the tobacco industry.

But this time, that may just be too late.

Note: * Like when they told us the "truth" about tobacco and how deep water drilling in the Gulf was perfectly safe. Or now, as the coal companies in West Virginia first said the leakage of chemicals into the water supply had nothing to do with them, and when that was proven to be false, said that there really isn't a problem because the lethality levels are low. Until people started ending up in the hospital because they were told the water was safe to drink. Remind you of Erin Brockovitch?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 22, 2014 12:32PM)
Turn off your lights, fires and anything that keeps you warm. We can double the price of electric and that will kill thousands of old people in the winter. Good idea!
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 22, 2014 12:36PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 02:22, mastermindreader wrote:
Even the Greeks of the classical era knew the world was round. The idea that there were "scientists" who thought it was flat is a complete myth. But myths are frequently accepted by those who get headaches trying to understand facts.
[/quote]

Someone read Wickipedia. :) Include everything you read not just what makes your point. Read the article again.

Quote from Widkipedia: "The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century."

The point being is that many believed it to be flat until they found out the TRUTH. Your including "classical" while correct just muddies up the water. It does not change the fact that many believed it to be flat.

"Archaic belief" the same "may", and I say "may" prove to be true about Global Warming then again it may not. No one knows for SURE. Some believed at one time that when detonated the first Atomic Bomb would set off a chain reaction that would continue and destroy the planet. It was obviously proved wrong.

The strange thing about this whole discussion is that those who don't believe in Global Warming hope they are correct. While those who do believe in Global Warming, hope they are wrong. The difference is that those who believe that Global Warming is a huge threat want to do something now. While those who don't adhere to the hypothesis want to wait and do nothing now and just continue along.

I guess if we use the ounce of prevention rule, something should be done NOW. However I do not believe it to be as big a threat as some believe. Hope I am right. But the ounce of prevention is probably a good idea. The problem is. Just what is an ounce of prevention? There lies the problem.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 12:46PM)
Ounce of prevention? Sure. Lower emissions. Some of that is already happening through legislation. (Automobile emission targets, for example. Improved oil extraction procedures.) How much is enough? How much is overkill?

These are the big questions. Unfortunately, the anti-AGW propagandists are applying significant political pressure to stop any further progress.

Nobody wants energy and industry to go away.

We need informed discussion on the best ways for them to operate.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 22, 2014 12:51PM)
The most inconvenient truth of all for the Delphi Oracles and their believers, is that it hasn’t got significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2. The totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial, fraction of a jot of meagre ration of 1 degree warmer since 1880 is all they all they have got after all their waffling at the end the end of day. Which the Delphi Oracles are desperately trying to make a Big thing about to support their grandiose prophesies of doom. The believers will tend believe any lie which they are afraid might be true. Those brainwashed all their lives to trust and obey authority do so, to the point of getting into ditch to be shot, especially if the authority wears a uniform. They think at last the moment this can't happen and the authorities will put a stop it and all that. It is little wonder they use the call to authority argument. They don't think for themselves and title of this thread says it all. Big brother, they love him. The report is proven sham and now they switch the goal posts to try and win a bit of some other augment and forget about global warming. How about you go and start your own thread instead of high jacking this one?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 01:10PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 13:51, tommy wrote:
The most inconvenient truth of all for the Delphi Oracles and their believers, is that it hasn’t got significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2. The totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial, fraction of a jot of meagre ration of 1 degree warmer since 1880 is all they all they have got after all their waffling at the end the end of day.[/quote]

Fascinating assertion, but so far as I can tell it's false. Do you have evidence?

NASA, for example, has data that disagrees with your claim.

[img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png[/img]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 01:12PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 14:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 13:51, tommy wrote:
The most inconvenient truth of all for the Delphi Oracles and their believers, is that it hasn’t got significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2. The totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial, fraction of a jot of meagre ration of 1 degree warmer since 1880 is all they all they have got after all their waffling at the end the end of day.[/quote]

Fascinating assertion, but so far as I can tell it's false. Do you have evidence?

NASA, for example, has data that disagrees with your claim.

[img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png[/img]
[/quote]


Or by "totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial," do you mean something other than that which is normally communicated with statistics?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 22, 2014 01:29PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 14:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 14:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 13:51, tommy wrote:
The most inconvenient truth of all for the Delphi Oracles and their believers, is that it hasn’t got significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2. The totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial, fraction of a jot of meagre ration of 1 degree warmer since 1880 is all they all they have got after all their waffling at the end the end of day.[/quote]

Fascinating assertion, but so far as I can tell it's false. Do you have evidence?

NASA, for example, has data that disagrees with your claim.

[img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png[/img]
[/quote]


Or by "totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial," do you mean something other than that which is normally communicated with statistics?
[/quote]

Again another pretty graph. Now tell us what it says. By that I mean just tell us in words how much of an increase in temp has there been since 1880 in degrees. That would be in the last 134 years. I believe I know but I want you to say it.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 22, 2014 01:45PM)
This is a clearer view of the trend:

[img]http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/16.jpg[/img]

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3070.aspx

The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

But why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.
The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.

The maps above show temperature anomalies, or changes, not absolute temperature. They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.)

In other words, the maps show how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951-1980.

The data set begins in 1880 because observations did not have sufficient global coverage prior to that time. The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather Service uses a three-decade period to define “normal” or average temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today’s adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.

To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; ship-based and satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer analysis program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperature anomalies relative to the average temperature for the same month during 1951-1980.

The objective, according to GISS scientists, is to provide an estimate of temperature change that could be compared with predictions of global climate change in response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, aerosols, and changes in solar activity.

As the maps show, global warming doesn’t mean temperatures rose everywhere at every time by one degree. Temperatures in a given year or decade might rise 5 degrees in one region and drop 2 degrees in another. Exceptionally cold winters in one region might be followed by exceptionally warm summers. Or a cold winter in one area might be balanced by an extremely warm winter in another part of the globe.

Generally, warming is greater over land than over the oceans because water is slower to absorb and release heat (thermal inertia). Warming may also differ substantially within specific land masses and ocean basins.

In the past decade (2000-2009), land temperature changes are 50 percent greater in the United States than ocean temperature changes; two to three times greater in Eurasia; and three to four times greater in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. Warming of the ocean surface has been largest over the Arctic Ocean, second largest over the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans, and third largest over most of the Atlantic Ocean.

In the analysis, the years from 1880 to 1950 tend to appear cooler (more blues than reds), growing less cool as we move toward the 1950s. Decades within the base period do not appear particularly warm or cold because they are the standard against which all decades are measured. The leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War II.

Fossil fuel use also increased in the post-War era (5 percent per year), boosting greenhouse gases. But aerosol cooling is more immediate, while greenhouse gases accumulate slowly and take much longer to leave the atmosphere. The strong warming trend of the past three decades likely reflects a shift from comparable aerosol and greenhouse gas effects to a predominance of greenhouse gases, as aerosols were curbed by pollution controls, according to GISS director Jim Hansen.

--http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 02:06PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 14:29, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 14:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 14:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 13:51, tommy wrote:
The most inconvenient truth of all for the Delphi Oracles and their believers, is that it hasn’t got significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2. The totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial, fraction of a jot of meagre ration of 1 degree warmer since 1880 is all they all they have got after all their waffling at the end the end of day.[/quote]

Fascinating assertion, but so far as I can tell it's false. Do you have evidence?

NASA, for example, has data that disagrees with your claim.

[img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png[/img]
[/quote]


Or by "totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial," do you mean something other than that which is normally communicated with statistics?
[/quote]

Again another pretty graph. Now tell us what it says. By that I mean just tell us in words how much of an increase in temp has there been since 1880 in degrees. That would be in the last 134 years. I believe I know but I want you to say it.
[/quote]

Are you serious? According to that graph, the global mean surface temperature has rose between 0.8 and 1.0 degree Celsius (or Kelvin), or roughly 1.6 Fahrenheit.

I'm pretty sure you could have read that yourself.

IF you check the latest figures at [url=http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/]NASA[/url], you'll see a modest increase since 2000 (about 0.2 degree C)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 22, 2014 02:11PM)
A fun game to play, which should be even more fun in the years to come, is to list the dire warnings and predictions made by warmists that didn't come true. Now, those who, 'believe in the science' would swear by these warnings when they come out but when they don't come to pass simply pass it off as, 'the science is evolving'. While, if you or I didn't believe in those wild claims when they were made it was because we 'didn't understand the science'.


Of course, those making the predictions will try to hide them when they don't come true, but luckily, we have an internet wayback machine that helps preserve much of these.

To start you off, I'll present one here.

"In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 22, 2014 02:26PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 15:06, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 14:29, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 14:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 14:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 13:51, tommy wrote:
The most inconvenient truth of all for the Delphi Oracles and their believers, is that it hasn’t got significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2. The totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial, fraction of a jot of meagre ration of 1 degree warmer since 1880 is all they all they have got after all their waffling at the end the end of day.[/quote]

Fascinating assertion, but so far as I can tell it's false. Do you have evidence?

NASA, for example, has data that disagrees with your claim.

[img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png[/img]
[/quote]


Or by "totally insignificant, unimportant, superficial, trivial," do you mean something other than that which is normally communicated with statistics?
[/quote]

Again another pretty graph. Now tell us what it says. By that I mean just tell us in words how much of an increase in temp has there been since 1880 in degrees. That would be in the last 134 years. I believe I know but I want you to say it.
[/quote]

Are you serious? According to that graph, the global mean surface temperature has rose between 0.8 and 1.0 degree Celsius (or Kelvin), or roughly 1.6 Fahrenheit.

I'm pretty sure you could have read that yourself.

IF you check the latest figures at [url=http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/]NASA[/url], you'll see a modest increase since 2000 (about 0.2 degree C)
[/quote]

So the rise of 0.8 and 1.0 degree Celsius (or Kelvin), or roughly 1.6 Fahrenheit.in 134 years is a bad thing? Suppose it were to cool instead of rise. What would the signifiance be? Is rising or falling more dangerous?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 22, 2014 02:28PM)
NASA Finds 2012 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend
Jan. 15, 2013

“The average temperature in 2012 was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6°Celsius), which is 1.0°F (0.6°C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4°F (0.8°C) since 1880, according to the new analysis.”

NASA http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20130115/


0.8°C since 1880 if true is no signicant inpotrace. See above for my definition statistical signicance.

[quote]
On 2014-01-21 14:51, tommy wrote:
As a betting man, I look for what they call statistical significances in happenings, which are things that happen which are probably not simply down to chance. My money is on that there is nothing extraordinary about a 0.8 warming of 1 degree since 1880. We know climate changes over time and for it to change a fraction of 1 degree is of no significance whatsoever.
[/quote]

Or see
Raising the bar on statistical significance
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/12/raising-the-bar-on-statistical-significance/

Or what makes YOU think a fraction of a 1 degree since 1880 is anything extraordinary?
What part of that fraction can YOU prove man caused?
Try and explain without call to authority what make YOU think is so catastrophic about that fraction.
What chance would YOU have of feeling the difference?


And your big chart makes it look big doesn't it?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 22, 2014 02:36PM)
Same dogs after the same cars.

But yet NOBODY has addressed my questions of solutions. This is no coincidence as it is a simple political debate and nobody wants to do anything but name call and act superior.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 22, 2014 02:46PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 15:11, rockwall wrote:
A fun game to play, which should be even more fun in the years to come, is to list the dire warnings and predictions made by warmists that didn't come true. Now, those who, 'believe in the science' would swear by these warnings when they come out but when they don't come to pass simply pass it off as, 'the science is evolving'. While, if you or I didn't believe in those wild claims when they were made it was because we 'didn't understand the science'.


Of course, those making the predictions will try to hide them when they don't come true, but luckily, we have an internet wayback machine that helps preserve much of these.

To start you off, I'll present one here.

"In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/
[/quote]

Very nice Rockwall- doubt you will get any response from this as it goes against the liberal agenda. Something may be said about it, i.e.- it's not from a credible source like the Huffington Post or the article was written by a closet Republican knowing this wouldn't happen..............

RNK
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 22, 2014 03:16PM)
Sea Levels?

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/09/06/environment/pacific-islands-fighting-for-survival-as-sea-levels-rise/#.UuA1EhDTmAk

More Powerful and Dangerous Hurricanes?

Warmer water in the oceans pumps more energy into tropical storms, making them stronger and potentially more destructive. Even with storms of the same intensity, future hurricanes will cause more damage as higher sea levels exacerbate storm surges, flooding, and erosion.

The number of category 4 and 5 storms has greatly increased over the past 35 years, along with ocean temperature.
Hurricane Katrina of August 2005 was the costliest and one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history and caused economic losses in the order of $125 billion.

Food Production?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/19/unchecked-global-warming-double-el-nino-weather
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 22, 2014 03:27PM)
I've often thought the argument about Hurricanes being the worst in history based on their 'cost' was a strange one. Which hurricane is larger and stronger? A cat 5 hurricane in the middle of no where that doesn't reach landfall or a cat 1 hurricane that hits a heavily populated area and causes damage? Hurricane Katrina was costly, largely because of where it hit, not so much because of it's severity.

Pop, what happened to all the climate refugees?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 03:31PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 15:28, tommy wrote:
NASA Finds 2012 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend
Jan. 15, 2013

“The average temperature in 2012 was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6°Celsius), which is 1.0°F (0.6°C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4°F (0.8°C) since 1880, according to the new analysis.”

NASA http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20130115/


0.8°C since 1880 if true is no signicant inpotrace. See above for my definition statistical signicance.

[quote]
On 2014-01-21 14:51, tommy wrote:
As a betting man, I look for what they call statistical significances in happenings, which are things that happen which are probably not simply down to chance. My money is on that there is nothing extraordinary about a 0.8 warming of 1 degree since 1880. We know climate changes over time and for it to change a fraction of 1 degree is of no significance whatsoever.
[/quote]

Or see
Raising the bar on statistical significance
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/12/raising-the-bar-on-statistical-significance/

Or what makes YOU think a fraction of a 1 degree since 1880 is anything extraordinary?
What part of that fraction can YOU prove man caused?
Try and explain without call to authority what make YOU think is so catastrophic about that fraction.
What chance would YOU have of feeling the difference?


And your big chart makes it look big doesn't it?
[/quote]

Take a peek at the graph. It's not linear. The rate of change is rather interesting. Should the trend continue (maybe it will; maybe it won't) the increase will be considerably more in a century than just another degree.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 03:39PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 15:11, rockwall wrote:
A fun game to play, which should be even more fun in the years to come, is to list the dire warnings and predictions made by warmists that didn't come true. Now, those who, 'believe in the science' would swear by these warnings when they come out but when they don't come to pass simply pass it off as, 'the science is evolving'. While, if you or I didn't believe in those wild claims when they were made it was because we 'didn't understand the science'.


Of course, those making the predictions will try to hide them when they don't come true, but luckily, we have an internet wayback machine that helps preserve much of these.

To start you off, I'll present one here.

"In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/
[/quote]

Do you have a link to the UN claim? All I can find is the Asian Correspondent article, which provides no real data. The map that the author seems to be so excited about is apparently not from the UN but from the newspaper Le Monde.

It would be interesting to find the source article, who wrote it, under what circumstances, and to what extent it was endorsed or supported by the UN.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 22, 2014 03:48PM)
Unfortunately, I don't Magnus. But not to worry. As Bob has told us, anyone who believes in AGW, 'understands the science', so I'm sure whoever made the claim, whether it was the UN or someone else understood the science and knew what they were talking about.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 22, 2014 03:52PM)
Yes all that good "sciency stuff" is only contained on left wing blogs that completely agree with a left wing agenda.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 22, 2014 03:55PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 15:36, Dannydoyle wrote:
Same dogs after the same cars.

But yet NOBODY has addressed my questions of solutions. This is no coincidence as it is a simple political debate and nobody wants to do anything but name call and act superior.
[/quote]

I tried to list some simple things we can do that could add up to significant results (turn off lights, alternative energy sources, ride a bike, etc). If not a solution, at least a slowing of our negative effects. I like talking practical solutions.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 03:56PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:48, rockwall wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't Magnus. But not to worry. As Bob has told us, anyone who believes in AGW, 'understands the science', so I'm sure whoever made the claim, whether it was the UN or someone else understood the science and knew what they were talking about.

[/quote]

So you believe a refutation of something you haven't read and you won't bother looking for it. And your excuse is a !@#$%y remark about Bob.

Gotcha.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 22, 2014 03:57PM)
If human caused global warming = true, then I say we do things that minimize our negative effect on the earth.

If human caused global warming = no true, then I say we do things that minimize our negative effect on the earth.

It seems strange to me that there is a debate of it's truthfulness. But, in a practical sense, I don't see a difference in how I would want to act.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 22, 2014 04:09PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:57, Scott Burton wrote:
If human caused global warming = true, then I say we do things that minimize our negative effect on the earth.

If human caused global warming = no true, then I say we do things that minimize our negative effect on the earth.

It seems strange to me that there is a debate of it's truthfulness. But, in a practical sense, I don't see a difference in how I would want to act.
[/quote]

Either you're being disingenuous or you're terribly naive.

If all anyone asked us to do was ride a bike or turn off the lights when we weren't using them, no one would be arguing about this.

Instead, the scare tactics are used as way of spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of the public's dollars on failed projects to reward political cronies and supporters. Countries are asking for hundreds of millions in 'climate reparations'. This is a huge power and money grab under the guise of saving the planet. If your sole form of income was a job in an industry targeted by the warmists, maybe you would be a bit more concerned. If you were someone living near the poverty level, you might be concerned with proposals that would cause your living costs, in the form of energy costs, to sky rocket.

If you really think this is simply about doing little things to use less energy, you are woefully misinformed.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 22, 2014 04:23PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:48, rockwall wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't Magnus. But not to worry. As Bob has told us, anyone who believes in AGW, 'understands the science', so I'm sure whoever made the claim, whether it was the UN or someone else understood the science and knew what they were talking about.

[/quote]

So you believe a refutation of something you haven't read and you won't bother looking for it. And your excuse is a !@#$%y remark about Bob.

Gotcha.
[/quote]

And you're the one being disingenuous if you don't admit that regardless of who makes these claims, they are picked up by the press, spread worldwide, and used for political purposes to support green agendas, etc. etc. (I know this, because I remember the story back when it first appeared.) If someone had posted this report here on NVMS back in 2005 when it was published, you know that anyone questioning it would have been labeled a science denier by Bob and several others here.

And by the way, I didn't say I hadn't read it, I said I didn't have a link to where the claim originated from.

But, if you want a little more of the backstory, you can look here.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53023/the-origins-of-the-50-million-climate-refugees-prediction/


I noticed Pop published two additional predictions above about sea level rise and El Nino weather patterns. When and if, neither of those come true, will you at that time ask, "Well, show me where these were predictions by actual scientists or the UN.", or will you ask that now?
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 22, 2014 04:30PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 17:09, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:57, Scott Burton wrote:
If human caused global warming = true, then I say we do things that minimize our negative effect on the earth.

If human caused global warming = no true, then I say we do things that minimize our negative effect on the earth.

It seems strange to me that there is a debate of it's truthfulness. But, in a practical sense, I don't see a difference in how I would want to act.
[/quote]

Either you're being disingenuous or you're terribly naive.

If all anyone asked us to do was ride a bike or turn off the lights when we weren't using them, no one would be arguing about this.

Instead, the scare tactics are used as way of spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of the public's dollars on failed projects to reward political cronies and supporters. Countries are asking for hundreds of millions in 'climate reparations'. This is a huge power and money grab under the guise of saving the planet. If your sole form of income was a job in an industry targeted by the warmists, maybe you would be a bit more concerned. If you were someone living near the poverty level, you might be concerned with proposals that would cause your living costs, in the form of energy costs, to sky rocket.

If you really think this is simply about doing little things to use less energy, you are woefully misinformed.

[/quote]

I'm glad you spelled out your actual concerns. Those are all big issues that are not easy to deal with but deal with we'll have to one day.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 04:46PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 17:23, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:48, rockwall wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't Magnus. But not to worry. As Bob has told us, anyone who believes in AGW, 'understands the science', so I'm sure whoever made the claim, whether it was the UN or someone else understood the science and knew what they were talking about.

[/quote]

So you believe a refutation of something you haven't read and you won't bother looking for it. And your excuse is a !@#$%y remark about Bob.

Gotcha.
[/quote]

And you're the one being disingenuous if you don't admit that regardless of who makes these claims, they are picked up by the press, spread worldwide, and used for political purposes to support green agendas, etc. etc. (I know this, because I remember the story back when it first appeared.) If someone had posted this report here on NVMS back in 2005 when it was published, you know that anyone questioning it would have been labeled a science denier by Bob and several others here.

And by the way, I didn't say I hadn't read it, I said I didn't have a link to where the claim originated from.

But, if you want a little more of the backstory, you can look here.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53023/the-origins-of-the-50-million-climate-refugees-prediction/


I noticed Pop published two additional predictions above about sea level rise and El Nino weather patterns. When and if, neither of those come true, will you at that time ask, "Well, show me where these were predictions by actual scientists or the UN.", or will you ask that now?

[/quote]

I read the asiancorrespondent story. He does acknowledge that Norman Myers of Oxford, who has no connection to the UN is responsible for the 50 million claim. He also acknowledges that Myers's work claims that many of the refugees will be internal to their countries, and acknowledges that he has no data or evidence to check the claim.

So a blogger at asiancorrespondent says that somebody from Oxford made some claims that probably didn't come true, and that the newspaper Le Monde made a graphic about these claims, and that some of the Oxford guys stuff was once on a UN website. Therefore we conclude something or other about the science of global climate change.

What, exactly, does this contribute to our discussion?

[I'll let Pop answer for his links.]


John
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 22, 2014 04:48PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 17:23, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:48, rockwall wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't Magnus. But not to worry. As Bob has told us, anyone who believes in AGW, 'understands the science', so I'm sure whoever made the claim, whether it was the UN or someone else understood the science and knew what they were talking about.

[/quote]

So you believe a refutation of something you haven't read and you won't bother looking for it. And your excuse is a !@#$%y remark about Bob.

Gotcha.
[/quote]

And you're the one being disingenuous if you don't admit that regardless of who makes these claims, they are picked up by the press, spread worldwide, and used for political purposes to support green agendas, etc. etc. (I know this, because I remember the story back when it first appeared.) If someone had posted this report here on NVMS back in 2005 when it was published, you know that anyone questioning it would have been labeled a science denier by Bob and several others here.

And by the way, I didn't say I hadn't read it, I said I didn't have a link to where the claim originated from.

But, if you want a little more of the backstory, you can look here.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53023/the-origins-of-the-50-million-climate-refugees-prediction/


I noticed Pop published two additional predictions above about sea level rise and El Nino weather patterns. When and if, neither of those come true, will you at that time ask, "Well, show me where these were predictions by actual scientists or the UN.", or will you ask that now?

[/quote]

Not predictions. Stuff that is happening NOW.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 22, 2014 05:26PM)
Oh dear the believers now think they are Cnut the Great.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2014 07:03PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 17:23, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:56, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:48, rockwall wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't Magnus. But not to worry. As Bob has told us, anyone who believes in AGW, 'understands the science', so I'm sure whoever made the claim, whether it was the UN or someone else understood the science and knew what they were talking about.

[/quote]

So you believe a refutation of something you haven't read and you won't bother looking for it. And your excuse is a !@#$%y remark about Bob.

Gotcha.
[/quote]

And you're the one being disingenuous if you don't admit that regardless of who makes these claims, they are picked up by the press, spread worldwide, and used for political purposes to support green agendas, etc. etc. (I know this, because I remember the story back when it first appeared.) If someone had posted this report here on NVMS back in 2005 when it was published, you know that anyone questioning it would have been labeled a science denier by Bob and several others here.

And by the way, I didn't say I hadn't read it, I said I didn't have a link to where the claim originated from.

But, if you want a little more of the backstory, you can look here.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53023/the-origins-of-the-50-million-climate-refugees-prediction/


I noticed Pop published two additional predictions above about sea level rise and El Nino weather patterns. When and if, neither of those come true, will you at that time ask, "Well, show me where these were predictions by actual scientists or the UN.", or will you ask that now?

[/quote]

I've not defended the press. My only concern is the evidence.

Scientific predictions are funny things. First, they are often contingent. e.g. Scientist: we have a potential flu epidemnic. Response: people get vaccinated. Result: no epidemic. Was the "pridiction" wrong, or did the action taken change the outcome?

Science is quite often wrong. But, unlike ideology (e.g. wattsupwiththat) it takes in new evidence and changes its position.

Could the scientists be wrong? Of course they could. But so far, none of the blogs you've posted have provided any reason to doubt the main scientific work.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 22, 2014 07:22PM)
A lot of things are beginning to happen:

http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/15/urgent-need-address-climate-change/
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 22, 2014 07:25PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 18:26, tommy wrote:
Oh dear the believers now think they are Cnut the Great.
[/quote]

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 22, 2014 07:52PM)
That's easy for [i]you[/i] to say.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 22, 2014 08:02PM)
Beowulf and his annoying Spear Danes always have something to say.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 22, 2014 09:03PM)
After reading and posting here, Global Warming seems trivial compared to close family.

Today, we lost a close Uncle, and my younger Brother's wife. Messed up day for me.

Now my generation is the next to go.
In a week, six close people died.
2 from Cancer
1 from heart attack
1 from suicide
2 from old age
0 from Global Warming.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 22, 2014 09:04PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 21:02, mastermindreader wrote:
Beowulf and his annoying Spear Danes always have something to say.
[/quote]

:) At least, in geardagum they did...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 22, 2014 09:46PM)
:)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 22, 2014 10:09PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:55, Scott Burton wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 15:36, Dannydoyle wrote:
Same dogs after the same cars.

But yet NOBODY has addressed my questions of solutions. This is no coincidence as it is a simple political debate and nobody wants to do anything but name call and act superior.
[/quote]

I tried to list some simple things we can do that could add up to significant results (turn off lights, alternative energy sources, ride a bike, etc). If not a solution, at least a slowing of our negative effects. I like talking practical solutions.
[/quote]

Each a wonderful idea even if not universal. I like them.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 22, 2014 11:29PM)
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2014/01/government-.html
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (Jan 22, 2014 11:36PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 22:03, Dennis Michael wrote:
After reading and posting here, Global Warming seems trivial compared to close family.

Today, we lost a close Uncle, and my younger Brother's wife. Messed up day for me.

Now my generation is the next to go.
In a week, six close people died.
2 from Cancer
1 from heart attack
1 from suicide
2 from old age
0 from Global Warming.
[/quote]

Sorry to hear about your loss Dennis. My condolences. I too will be attending a funeral of a distant relative. She wasn't close to me or my direct family, but my other family members (she was my aunt's mother) were close to her, so, I will be attending the funeral to support my family. It's going to be a busy weekend. Take care!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 22, 2014 11:51PM)
Sad to see the deaths of love ones politicized with the gratuitous and ridiculous comment that none died from global warming.

None died from strokes, either, so I guess that's a "trivial" matter too.

And, Danny, suggestions of how to deal with the problem HAVE been made. You even agreed with that in your last comment. The difficulty, though, is that any reasonable conservation and regulatory efforts cut into the bottom line of corporate America. And since they've bought and paid for a significant percentage of our representatives, it is clear that NOTHING will be done.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (Jan 23, 2014 01:54AM)
I too am sorry to hear of your recent losses Dennis. But I too feel terrible about the comment. I mentioned before that Dennis your post about nothing bad happening for many years in the future seemed very selfish. The comment about the "trivial" nature of environmental destruction is also very selfish. We are not talking about effects to us personally. Personal losses close to us are very important - and timely. We're talking about being conscious about how our actions affect others. I think that a good and moral person would consider how their actions may negatively affect other people and adjust their actions accordingly to the best of their understanding and ability.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 23, 2014 02:20AM)
Cut him some slack, he's grieving. Sorry for your loss.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 23, 2014 07:15AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 00:51, mastermindreader wrote:
Sad to see the deaths of love ones politicized with the gratuitous and ridiculous comment that none died from global warming.

None died from strokes, either, so I guess that's a "trivial" matter too.

And, Danny, suggestions of how to deal with the problem HAVE been made. You even agreed with that in your last comment. The difficulty, though, is that any reasonable conservation and regulatory efforts cut into the bottom line of corporate America. And since they've bought and paid for a significant percentage of our representatives, it is clear that NOTHING will be done.


[/quote]

Now we cut to the chase. Please define "reasonable regulatory efforts" for me. Let my know what the exact economic impact will be of said efforts. Spell out how it is not the ever expansion of a Leviathan government how it will not trample rights and what will the same daft benefit be when the steps are finally taken.

See this sort of thing can be a discussion and not name calling and trying to one up the other side. I think if politicians on both sides actually wanted to help it would be discussed in this manner. There is more money in the arguing than in the solutions. Many people on both sides make a ton of money just HAVING an opinion.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 23, 2014 08:04AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 00:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2014/01/government-.html
[/quote]
Not sure what your point is here. Is this supposed to be an example of government overreach that will destroy the car seat market and be so expensive that no woman will ever think to have a child again, lest she not be able to afford a car seat, or is this an example of government regulation that makes sense and might save some lives, or is it posted in the wrong thread or what? Inquiring minds would like some editorial comment.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 23, 2014 08:16AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 17:09, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 16:57, Scott Burton wrote:
If human caused global warming = true, then I say we do things that minimize our negative effect on the earth.

If human caused global warming = no true, then I say we do things that minimize our negative effect on the earth.

It seems strange to me that there is a debate of it's truthfulness. But, in a practical sense, I don't see a difference in how I would want to act.
[/quote]

Either you're being disingenuous or you're terribly naive.

If all anyone asked us to do was ride a bike or turn off the lights when we weren't using them, no one would be arguing about this.

Instead, the scare tactics are used as way of spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of the public's dollars on failed projects to reward political cronies and supporters. Countries are asking for hundreds of millions in 'climate reparations'. This is a huge power and money grab under the guise of saving the planet. If your sole form of income was a job in an industry targeted by the warmists, maybe you would be a bit more concerned. If you were someone living near the poverty level, you might be concerned with proposals that would cause your living costs, in the form of energy costs, to sky rocket.

If you really think this is simply about doing little things to use less energy, you are woefully misinformed.

[/quote]

Exactly Rockwall! On contrary to what Bob is saying this is a power/money grab by our politicians and an opening for other countries to take more of our money. If Global Warming was a major issue something would have been done about it by now. Obama and his regime had the majority in the House and Senate when they rammed the Healthcare Bill down our throats and could have done something about it then. But didn't! Only proving that there are to many differing opinions and not enough data and correlations to truly prove Global Warming is happening.

RNK
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 23, 2014 08:38AM)
Please define "reasonable regulatory efforts" for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9wNJ78S2GY

Rationing is the controlled distribution of scarce resources, goods, or services. Rationing controls the size of the ration, one's allotted portion of the resources being distributed on a particular day or at a particular time.


Personal carbon trading is a general term referring to a number of proposed emissions trading schemes under which emissions credits are allocated to adult individuals on a (broadly) equal per capita basis, within national carbon budgets.[1] Individuals then surrender these credits when buying fuel or electricity. Individuals wanting or needing to emit at a level above that permitted by their initial allocation would be able to purchase additional credits from those using less, creating a profit for those individuals who emit at a level below that permitted by their initial allocation.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_carbon_trading

Carbon = All


Plan for 'credit cards' to ration individuals' carbon use
A limit could be imposed on the carbon each person pumps into the atmosphere under proposals being considered by the Government to combat global warming.
A credit card-style trading system would ensure that people pay for air travel, electricity, gas and petrol with carbon rations as well as cash, under the plans to be floated today by David Miliband, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in a speech to the Audit Commission.

....

He will say: "In the short term it is likely that a mixture of the above tools will be needed. But in the long term, we should look more radically at the option of tradable personal carbon allowances. Imagine a world where carbon becomes a new currency. We all carry carbon points on our bank cards in the same way as we carry pounds. We pay for electricity, gas and fuel not just with pounds but carbon points."

http://www.independent.co.uk
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 23, 2014 09:08AM)
Some people forget that carbon credits was an idea that was originally endorsed by the GOP in the 2008 election. (Just like they originally endorsed the Heritage Foundation concept of the individual mandate in health insurance.)

But they quickly turned against the ideas when they discovered that Democrats supported them too.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 23, 2014 09:27AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 10:08, mastermindreader wrote:
Some people forget that carbon credits was an idea that was originally endorsed by the GOP in the 2008 election. (Just like they originally endorsed the Heritage Foundation concept of the individual mandate in health insurance.)

But they quickly turned against the ideas when they discovered that Democrats supported them too.
[/quote]

And when they(GOP) listened to the American people speaking against it knowing it would cause higher taxes and energy prices!

Something the Democrats don't do- listen to the American people!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 23, 2014 09:30AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 10:27, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 10:08, mastermindreader wrote:
Some people forget that carbon credits was an idea that was originally endorsed by the GOP in the 2008 election. (Just like they originally endorsed the Heritage Foundation concept of the individual mandate in health insurance.)

But they quickly turned against the ideas when they discovered that Democrats supported them too.
[/quote]

And when they(GOP) listened to the American people speaking against it knowing it would cause higher taxes and energy prices!

Something the Democrats don't do- listen to the American people!
[/quote]

Sometimes doing what is right involves doing what is unpopular.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 23, 2014 09:51AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 10:27, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 10:08, mastermindreader wrote:
Some people forget that carbon credits was an idea that was originally endorsed by the GOP in the 2008 election. (Just like they originally endorsed the Heritage Foundation concept of the individual mandate in health insurance.)

But they quickly turned against the ideas when they discovered that Democrats supported them too.
[/quote]

And when they(GOP) listened to the American people speaking against it knowing it would cause higher taxes and energy prices!

Something the Democrats don't do- listen to the American people!
[/quote]

Looking at the last two elections, I think the majority of Americans would disagree.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 23, 2014 09:52AM)
What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 23, 2014 10:12AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 10:51, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 10:27, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 10:08, mastermindreader wrote:
Some people forget that carbon credits was an idea that was originally endorsed by the GOP in the 2008 election. (Just like they originally endorsed the Heritage Foundation concept of the individual mandate in health insurance.)

But they quickly turned against the ideas when they discovered that Democrats supported them too.
[/quote]

And when they(GOP) listened to the American people speaking against it knowing it would cause higher taxes and energy prices!

Something the Democrats don't do- listen to the American people!
[/quote]

Looking at the last two elections, I think the majority of Americans would disagree.
[/quote]

That's right! You have to listen to the people in order to tell them what they want to hear.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 23, 2014 10:23AM)
Sometimes doing what is right involves doing what is unpopular.

"It’s called the ‘default position’ – the defence that ‘nobody wants this, but we have no choice’. If you want to enact legislation that is clearly going to be unpopular and deeply repressive, you need to justify it. To be able to claim that circumstances are so serious, that it’s this or the end of civilization itself."


What we are looking for are unpopular and deeply repressive ideas.


This is no time to go wobberly!

:)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 23, 2014 11:59AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 10:08, mastermindreader wrote:
Some people forget that carbon credits was an idea that was originally endorsed by the GOP in the 2008 election. (Just like they originally endorsed the Heritage Foundation concept of the individual mandate in health insurance.)

But they quickly turned against the ideas when they discovered that Democrats supported them too.
[/quote]

Seriously? You are the loudest voice against labeling and the guy who does it the most to others.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 23, 2014 12:34PM)
How is that labeling, Danny?

That is simply the facts.

What are you objecting to?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 23, 2014 12:39PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 11:23, tommy wrote:
Sometimes doing what is right involves doing what is unpopular.

"It’s called the ‘default position’ – the defence that ‘nobody wants this, but we have no choice’. If you want to enact legislation that is clearly going to be unpopular and deeply repressive, you need to justify it. To be able to claim that circumstances are so serious, that it’s this or the end of civilization itself."


What we are looking for are unpopular and deeply repressive ideas.


This is no time to go wobberly!

:)
[/quote]

Even unpopular legislation--such as protecting the rights of minorities, or guaranteeing rule of law for the unpopular--require justification.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 23, 2014 01:31PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-22 15:11, rockwall wrote:
A fun game to play, which should be even more fun in the years to come, is to list the dire warnings and predictions made by warmists that didn't come true. Now, those who, 'believe in the science' would swear by these warnings when they come out but when they don't come to pass simply pass it off as, 'the science is evolving'. While, if you or I didn't believe in those wild claims when they were made it was because we 'didn't understand the science'.

...
[/quote]

In the spirit of this fun game, I'll present another example. And just so Bob doesn't think that it's only those in the US that are the knuckle draggers, I'll post a link from a German source. For those that like pretty pictures, the article also has one of those.

http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=4006

"One of the most important papers in the history of the climate alarm is published by J. Hansen and collaborators in Journal of Geophysical Research (1988). The title is ”Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies”.

...
The arrow above scenario A is what they may have predicted with a 2.5 % CO2 increase which is observed, instead of the 1.5% in scenario A. However, the observed temperature increase is about 0.6C, while the predicted increase is about 1.5C.

We must conclude that the simulations of 1988 have failed 150%. The sorry state of affairs is that these simulations are believed to be a true forecast by our politicians."
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 23, 2014 01:38PM)
The paper you present isn't accurate. It is totally incorrect:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/simply-wrong-solheim-hansen-88.html

I agree with this comment posted on the site:

This is an example of what happens when you try to win rather than understand. Rather than try to understand Hansen's calculations and then criticize based on that understanding Solheim has read Hansen maliciously, looking to find fault and missing context and reasoning. Hardly the only denialist that I have seen do that. In fact most of their rebuttals of climate science pieces suffer from this flaw, at least in my experience.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 23, 2014 01:57PM)
I never said that ONLY Americans are science deniers. Just that here in America a large number are completely taken in my their pro-business propaganda. There are misinformed people everywhere. And maliciously deceptive ones too, as described in the skepticalscience link Pop cited in response to the ridiculous German blog article.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 23, 2014 02:00PM)
No matter where you stand, simply cheering for an "authority" who reaches the same conclusion as you is truly pathetic.

As Pop quoted, this is what happens when you'd rather win than understand.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 23, 2014 03:07PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 14:57, mastermindreader wrote:
I never said that ONLY Americans are science deniers. Just that here in America a large number are completely taken in my their pro-business propaganda. There are misinformed people everywhere. And maliciously deceptive ones too, as described in the skepticalscience link Pop cited in response to the ridiculous German blog article.
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2014-01-20 17:48, mastermindreader wrote:
...
Only in the US is this a political issue rather than a scientific one.
...
[/quote]

gee, it certainly sounded like that.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 23, 2014 03:22PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 15:00, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
No matter where you stand, simply cheering for an "authority" who reaches the same conclusion as you is truly pathetic.

As Pop quoted, this is what happens when you'd rather win than understand.
[/quote]

And so, are you now cheering for the 'authority' that Pop quoted because he reaches the same conclusion as you?
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 23, 2014 05:41PM)
Suggestion: Spend time with family since it so much more important than trying to solve the world's problems which you have no control.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 23, 2014 06:21PM)
June 5, 2013 http://www.pop.org/ - Bioethicist Peter Singer compared women and children to cows overgrazing a field and said that women’s reproductive rights may one day have to be sacrificed for the environment. He made the remarks at the global Women Deliver Conference last week, hailed as the most important meeting to focus on women and girls’ human rights in a decade. r added that “greenhouse gases… are getting very close to a tipping point,” and climate change could become a “catastrophe and cause hundreds of millions or billions of people to become climate refugees.”
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 23, 2014 06:28PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 18:41, Dennis Michael wrote:
Suggestion: Spend time with family since it so much more important than trying to solve the world's problems which you have no control.
[/quote]
It takes too much energy [i]not [/i] to care.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Jan 23, 2014 07:00PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 19:21, tommy wrote:
June 5, 2013 http://www.pop.org/ - Bioethicist Peter Singer compared women and children to cows overgrazing a field and said that women’s reproductive rights may one day have to be sacrificed for the environment. He made the remarks at the global Women Deliver Conference last week, hailed as the most important meeting to focus on women and girls’ human rights in a decade. r added that “greenhouse gases… are getting very close to a tipping point,” and climate change could become a “catastrophe and cause hundreds of millions or billions of people to become climate refugees.”
[/quote]

Womens reproductive rights ARE being sacrificed (on the 41st anniv of Roe v Wade), not for the environment but for patriarchy/religion! The right to abortion is being taken away in such things as fetal heartbeat laws, etc. here in the US. Abortion doctors are being murdered; and women are being forced to become mother's worldwide. The fact that overpopulation might NOT be a factor in climate change should in no way be linked to a woman's right to safe and legal abortion. I also don't care for Singer's comparisons of women to 'cows'; NOR to his implied suggestion that women be forced (by men, of course) to have abortions for the environment. Lynn
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 23, 2014 07:17PM)
A lot of things are beginning to happen:

A lot of things began to happen from the dawn of time and a lot of things have happened on each and every day since then. With the exception of the day the world stood still of course. Which might just might be something to do with what they call nature maybe. However, there have always been believers who thought people were the cause. Men who believed in sacrificing children and so on. China alone has prevented more births than the population of the United States. Interestingly the Manipulation of the Delphi Technique was used to manufacture the illusion of consensus of opinion to bring in that policy, just as it is with the grand climate illusion consensus, as we know from the Rockefeller boys Club of Rome documents that have come to light recently and who came up with the idea Global Warming in first place. The more things change the more they stay the same as they say. So what do fellows think to building altars? That might alter things.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 23, 2014 10:15PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 13:34, Pop Haydn wrote:
How is that labeling, Danny?

That is simply the facts.

What are you objecting to?
[/quote]

To lump everyone into one category as republicans and seem to demand they all think exactly the same thing or else they are hypocrites. Just like the Obamacare was a republican idea nonsense. Then he cries foul when he is lumped in with gun grabbers.

Make sense?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 23, 2014 10:45PM)
The part of Obamacare that was a Republican idea is the individual mandate, which was the first thing Republicans attacked as soon as Obama supported it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 23, 2014 11:02PM)
And it was a bad idea then. Why do you want to hold anyone you can to it?

How about we saddle you with the most extreme and stupid things the left puts forth Bob? I don't because it would not be fair and it would lump you into a category you often object loudly when people do it. I just wish you would extend the same courtesy you demand.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 23, 2014 11:25PM)
Glad to see you finally concede that the individual mandate was, in fact, a Republican idea. It was, in fact, actually supported by Republican leadership, not just the "extremists." (Until Obama supported it, of course.)

But, for the record Danny, I don't lump you into any category. There is, you have to admit, a great deal that we often agree on.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 23, 2014 11:28PM)
Absolutely which causes my frustration with groupings.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 24, 2014 08:00AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 00:25, mastermindreader wrote:
Glad to see you finally concede that the individual mandate was, in fact, a Republican idea. It was, in fact, actually supported by Republican leadership, not just the "extremists." (Until Obama supported it, of course.)

But, for the record Danny, I don't lump you into any category. There is, you have to admit, a great deal that we often agree on.
[/quote]

Again- no matter whose idea it was- the majority of American people spoke up against it- and the GOP listened. So to say at least one group sometimes listens to the American people..... and it's not the Democrats.....
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 24, 2014 08:37AM)
The GOP consistently take positions that the majority of Americans are demonstrably opposed to. Their insistence, despite majority opinion, to restrict the rights of women, workers, et al, hardly shows that they listen to anyone except the most extreme.

What is the popularity rating of the GOP nationally? Please explain why it is at its LOWEST of all time if they are the party that listens.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Jan 24, 2014 09:40AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 09:37, mastermindreader wrote:
The GOP consistently take positions that the majority of Americans are demonstrably opposed to. Their insistence, despite majority opinion, to restrict the rights of women, workers, et al, hardly shows that they listen to anyone except the most extreme.

What is the popularity rating of the GOP nationally? Please explain why it is at its LOWEST of all time if they are the party that listens.
[/quote]

The GOP ratings do seem inconsistent. IMO, one of the main reasons is that the mainstream media outlets won't cover any news, scandal or whatever that makes the Democrats or the President look bad. The majority of Americans are opposed to Obamacare, they'd like to know who's heads are going to roll regarding Benghazi.

I got a kick out of some of the Hollywood celebrities being asked recently if they were disappointed in the President's performance.
They obviously don't realize how ridiculously stupid they sound when they all say "no". None of them seem to have the ability to think for themselves.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 24, 2014 09:42AM)
Wow Bob.

With Als absence have you taken over the position of head cheerleader?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 24, 2014 10:04AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 10:42, Dannydoyle wrote:
Wow Bob.

With Als absence have you taken over the position of head cheerleader?
[/quote]

Wow, Danny! How is it cheerleading to simply state a fact? And why not respond with a substantive argument rather than name calling? What I wrote about the popularity of the GOP is true. (Not that the Dems are much more popular.)

It is a FACT, however, that the GOP routinely takes positions that are directly opposed to majority opinion in the US.

Here's just one example:

The national Republican platform calls for the nullification of Roe v. Wade.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/abortion/a/2012-Republican-Platform-On-Abortion.htm


If they are the party that listens to the people, why is this so?

Gallup polls re Roe v. Wade:

[img]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xomjy-tp_km9f1crnixjtg.gif[/img]


http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2014 10:09AM)
Trying to get back on topic.

[quote]
On 2014-01-23 14:38, Pop Haydn wrote:
The paper you present isn't accurate. It is totally incorrect:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/simply-wrong-solheim-hansen-88.html

I agree with this comment posted on the site:

This is an example of what happens when you try to win rather than understand. Rather than try to understand Hansen's calculations and then criticize based on that understanding Solheim has read Hansen maliciously, looking to find fault and missing context and reasoning. Hardly the only denialist that I have seen do that. In fact most of their rebuttals of climate science pieces suffer from this flaw, at least in my experience.
[/quote]

I remember back when the new IPCC came out with their new report, I posted an article from the Telegraph I think it was. Either Bob or Magnus quickly commented on how silly it is to listen to a reporter’s opinion over that of real scientists.
The paper I presented that Pop claims is totally incorrect was written by Jan-Erik Solheim, a professor at the University of Tromso in Norway in the Institute of Theoretical of Astrophysics who has written several peer reviewed papers. The article from the warmist blog skepticalscience that Pop links to is written by a self-described amateur. (He does however have a Bachelor’s degree is astrophysics!)

Here’s his bio:
http://www.greenoptions.com/u/182/dana1981
I'm a 28-year-old Environmental Scientist with a BA in astrophysics from UC Berkeley and an MS in physics from UC Davis. I've done a lot of research on global warming and am very passionate about the issue. I've also researched alternative fueled vehicles very extensively. I own a Prius and R Martin EVD and commute to work via bicycle or electric moped (EVD).

[quote]
On 2014-01-23 15:00, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
No matter where you stand, simply cheering for an "authority" who reaches the same conclusion as you is truly pathetic.

As Pop quoted, this is what happens when you'd rather win than understand.
[/quote]

Of course, since this “authority” is one that reaches the same conclusion as Pop and Magnus, they both cheer for him instead of question his blog post. Now who’s being pathetic?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 24, 2014 10:24AM)
Bob it is a fact that is how the mainstream media outlets want to portray things. You know all this. Save it for a drone who falls for it.

You are not a drone that is not what I am saying.

But it is cheerleading to cherry pick specific as you do. This is a statement of fact. You don't like it so it becomes name in your eyes.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 24, 2014 10:51AM)
Given the nature of things I know this doesn't hold any sway here but the majority of research has indicated a slight rightward tilt to the overall media picture. The only really notable exceptions are a further right lean in Fox and a further left lean in one other... I think it was MSNBC. At any rate, the "liberal media" myth seems to be one of those "repeat the lie enough times" examples.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 24, 2014 10:52AM)
The genius Nikola Tesla thought Pop was a pathetic buffoon but who is here and who is not?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 24, 2014 10:56AM)
Majority of researchresearch by whom?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 24, 2014 10:58AM)
http://youtu.be/tgQHT9UILr0
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 11:02AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 11:04, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 10:42, Dannydoyle wrote:
Wow Bob.

With Als absence have you taken over the position of head cheerleader?
[/quote]

Wow, Danny! How is it cheerleading to simply state a fact? And why not respond with a substantive argument rather than name calling? What I wrote about the popularity of the GOP is true. (Not that the Dems are much more popular.)

It is a FACT, however, that the GOP routinely takes positions that are directly opposed to majority opinion in the US.

Here's just one example:

The national Republican platform calls for the nullification of Roe v. Wade.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/abortion/a/2012-Republican-Platform-On-Abortion.htm


If they are the party that listens to the people, why is this so?

Gallup polls re Roe v. Wade:

[img]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xomjy-tp_km9f1crnixjtg.gif[/img]


http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
[/quote]

As do the Democrats. Here is just one example.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159770/death-penalty-support-stable.aspx
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 11:04AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 09:37, mastermindreader wrote:
The GOP consistently take positions that the majority of Americans are demonstrably opposed to. Their insistence, despite majority opinion, to restrict the rights of women, workers, et al, hardly shows that they listen to anyone except the most extreme.

What is the popularity rating of the GOP nationally? Please explain why it is at its LOWEST of all time if they are the party that listens.
[/quote]

In what ways do the Republicans insist on restricting the rights of women? Unless you're specifically and exclusively talking about abortion, in which case nm.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2014 11:11AM)
This is a topic about Scientists agreeing on Global Warming. Before it gets deleted I would respectfully ask that we take the political discussion to a different thread where it can get deleted there.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 24, 2014 11:15AM)
On virtually all social policies, including abortion rights, voting rights, education, "entitlement" programs, poverty programs, minimum wage, etc.

But I think that the data I provided above regarding support for Roe v. Wade is sufficient to dismiss the notion that Republicans, as a group, follow the wishes of the American people.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 24, 2014 11:18AM)
Rockwall it will be deleted soon no matter what what.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 24, 2014 11:27AM)
Social scientists.
If anyone's interested, this is a study of why people have the "liberal media" perception which provides references to the analyses I mentioned for further research:
Lee, Tien-Tsung ; Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol 49(1), Mar, 2005. pp. 43-64, doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4

That's a peer-reviewed journal, by the bye.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 11:37AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 12:15, mastermindreader wrote:
On virtually all social policies, including abortion rights, voting rights, education, "entitlement" programs, poverty programs, minimum wage, etc.

But I think that the data I provided above regarding support for Roe v. Wade is sufficient to dismiss the notion that Republicans, as a group, follow the wishes of the American people.
[/quote]

1) Disagree with your "virtually all" statement.
2) I think the data I provided above regarding support for capital punishment is sufficient to dismiss the notion that Democrats, as a group, follow the wishes of the American people.

Both sides support their own ideology, capitalizing whenever possible on majority popular support for those ideologies, and minimizing whenever possible those conflicts with the majority opinion (by, for instance, appealing to hard-to-define considerations like "national security," "human rights," etc.) or, if the ideology is relatively insignificant (to them), "evolving" on the issue to stay in the good graces of the voter.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 12:01PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 12:27, critter wrote:
Social scientists.
If anyone's interested, this is a study of why people have the "liberal media" perception which provides references to the analyses I mentioned for further research:
Lee, Tien-Tsung ; Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol 49(1), Mar, 2005. pp. 43-64, doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4

That's a peer-reviewed journal, by the bye.
[/quote]

Having attended graduate school at a 9th District public institution, based on my own personal experience, that'd sure be my conclusion if I wanted a Ph.D.!
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 24, 2014 12:09PM)
I totally called that response. Maybe I should go into mentalism...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 12:21PM)
It's a tough way to make an easy living, is my understanding.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 24, 2014 12:41PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 09:37, mastermindreader wrote:
The GOP consistently take positions that the majority of Americans are demonstrably opposed to. Their insistence, despite majority opinion, to restrict the rights of women, workers, et al, hardly shows that they listen to anyone except the most extreme.

What is the popularity rating of the GOP nationally? Please explain why it is at its LOWEST of all time if they are the party that listens.
[/quote]

Like Obama's approval ratings- In the tank! The polls showed majority of Americans DID NOT want the ACA to pass. This is fact. But again- since it doesn't agree with your opinion I guess the fact that the ALL the Polls were over 50% opposing the passing of the law really was just fantasy! Shame, still having trouble accepting facts.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 13:09, critter wrote:
I totally called that response. Maybe I should go into mentalism...
[/quote]

Of course, my response was partially tongue-in-cheek, but here's my personal experience: I never received a grade under an 'A' in a seminar class at law school, including probably the toughest class the school offered, certainly with the generally-agreed toughest professor. Mostly because one of the things I do best is write. I did it professionally and full-time for quite a while. Then I took the class "Feminist Legal theory," which was quite interesting, though I disagreed with many of the readings and much of the lectures. When it came time to choose a seminar paper topic, I opted for the topic of libertarian feminism. The basic thrust of my paper was that there is a longstanding tradition of libertarian feminism, and it's unfortunate that people (particularly students) and presented with only a single, narrow view of what "feminism" is. The paper was 22 pages long, IIRC. The professor wrote five words on it, two of which were a mistaken grammatical 'correction,' and gave me a B. Pure ideology.

Punchline - The biggest idiot in that class was also the biggest liberal. This is not a generalization; I've met conservatives who were just as idiotic (they just didn't take that class), and I have a number of extremely liberal friends who are extremely intelligent. One of things I referred to in the paper was a classroom discussion involving an extremely obvious bit of evidence involving basic statistical evidence, in which the student in question couldn't grasp the point. The student in question had a graduate degree in a field in which research statistics was undoubtedly a required subject. At this point in the paper, I was writing about how ideologues in the class (she was the biggest choir member the professor was preaching to) and in our course readings rejected not only any conclusions they disagreed with, but any and all evidence that remotely tended to undermine their positions.

The classroom exchange with this person showed that she either had no grasp of basic math, or she was a far bigger proponent of the philosophy "If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of" than anyone who's ever posted on NVMS. A couple of months ago, I browsed the faculty list at my school, because I couldn't remember the name of one of my professors. I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry when I saw that the student in question is now a proud faculty member at a top-20 law school.

Having said all that, I tried to access the paper you posted a link to, but couldn't find a free version. I did, however, read a sample on Justia. I found it interesting that Mr. Lee, who apparently doesn't believe that a consistent ideological media bias exists (more on this in a bit), seems to rely rather heavily on Mr. Parenti, who as I recall from my undergraduate days DOES believe that a media bias exists - a conservative bias. I wonder if it would surprise Lee to know that Parenti was required reading in a poly sci class, teaching the opposite of one of his (Lee's) fundamental beliefs.

Lee's paper seems to take as an initial assumption that there is no media bias, citing a number of studies (some rather dated) that don't show one. I have no doubt that one could find a number of peer-reviewed studies that DO show a liberal media bias (as well as a number that show a conservative media bias). It's such a subjective issue that it seems pure folly to assert that anything on the issue has been "proven."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 24, 2014 12:51PM)
Not THOSE facts. That is the fault of Fox News.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 24, 2014 01:00PM)
Funny how far the discussion has moved from the OP which suggested that there is a high level of consensus on global warming amongst scientists.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 01:25PM)
I'm just hoping it doesn't get deleted before it turns to "Hagar or Roth?"
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2014 02:03PM)
Has a topic on NVMS ever turned to Hagar or Roth?

Ooops. I guess this one just did!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 02:25PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 15:03, rockwall wrote:
Hagar or Roth?
[/quote]

I prefer Hagar as a solo artist, but definitely Roth with VH. That's not to say they didn't have some great tunes with Sammy (e.g. Right Now, Dreams, etc.), but VH to me will always be stuff like "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love," "And The Cradle Will Rock," etc. Thanks for asking.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 24, 2014 03:38PM)
I aced my feminist psych class and I questioned everything, so we're 50/50.
Your thoughts on Lee emphasize my point though. People shout this liberal media bias from the rooftops with not a shred of evidence. That's sort of exactly what I was saying the problem is. There is not a preponderance of research indicating a liberal media bias so it seems to be just something a talking head made up once upon a time that gets parroted in just about every political discussion there is. If there's going to be intelligent discourse then a language of fictions is not helpful.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2014 03:40PM)
I assume many of you know who Ed Thorp is. Here are his thoughts on global warming:

http://www.edwardothorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/globalwarming.doc

Some fascinating stuff at his site. Papers on gambling and investments. Did you know he used to run a multi-million hedge fund, and made a fortune in the markets?

http://www.edwardothorp.com/index.html
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 04:22PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 16:38, critter wrote:
I aced my feminist psych class and I questioned everything, so we're 50/50.
Your thoughts on Lee emphasize my point though. People shout this liberal media bias from the rooftops with not a shred of evidence. That's sort of exactly what I was saying the problem is. There is not a preponderance of research indicating a liberal media bias so it seems to be just something a talking head made up once upon a time that gets parroted in just about every political discussion there is. If there's going to be intelligent discourse then a language of fictions is not helpful.
[/quote]

Which part of my thoughts on Lee emphasize your point? What, if anything, did I say that you disagree with? He takes as a starting point that there is no bias, committing btw a logical flaw in doing so - citing absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Then he sets out to explain why people think there is, which is fine, except that (unless he does so later in the paper) he certainly hasn't ruled out the possibility that peop,e think there is one because there is. And along the way, he heavily (at least in the beginning of his paper) cites Parenti, a far-left figure who DOES believe that there is a media bias.

There's all sorts of evidence on the side of a liberal bias. And on the side of a conservative bias. And on the side of no bias. It's far too subjective to be "proven.". Anyone writing a paper can just choose to use whatever criteria he or she wants to use to constitute what would reflect bias, and either find it or not find it.

I suspect most the research is conducted and published by academics. Do think they're politically bias-neutral, as a group?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 24, 2014 07:01PM)
The fact that you say there is no hard evidence as to a bias supports my point. For people to repeatedly insist that there is a liberal bias as if it's a given is dishonest.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 24, 2014 07:07PM)
As to the final question, I can't speak to all academics. I think the science in my labs is honest. We test everything before we run it to make everything as neutral as possible and then report exactly what we find. To fudge it is a bigger pain in the arse than I want to put into it. I don't know how other labs do it, but I tend to think it's usually somewhat similar. Academic dishonesty seems to be ferreted out somewhat quickly, i.e., the vaccine-scare.
I should hope that a peer reviewed academic journal is as educated and un-biased a source as one is going to find, in general. It's certainly the format that has the most stringent standards to make it such. If we don't give it credence then there's certainly not another source I'm ready to give precedence over it.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 24, 2014 07:21PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 20:00, lynnef wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-23 19:21, tommy wrote:
June 5, 2013 http://www.pop.org/ - Bioethicist Peter Singer compared women and children to cows overgrazing a field and said that women’s reproductive rights may one day have to be sacrificed for the environment. He made the remarks at the global Women Deliver Conference last week, hailed as the most important meeting to focus on women and girls’ human rights in a decade. r added that “greenhouse gases… are getting very close to a tipping point,” and climate change could become a “catastrophe and cause hundreds of millions or billions of people to become climate refugees.”
[/quote]

Womens reproductive rights ARE being sacrificed (on the 41st anniv of Roe v Wade), not for the environment but for patriarchy/religion! The right to abortion is being taken away in such things as fetal heartbeat laws, etc. here in the US. Abortion doctors are being murdered; and women are being forced to become mother's worldwide. The fact that overpopulation might NOT be a factor in climate change should in no way be linked to a woman's right to safe and legal abortion. I also don't care for Singer's comparisons of women to 'cows'; NOR to his implied suggestion that women be forced (by men, of course) to have abortions for the environment. Lynn

[/quote]

and women are being forced to become mother's worldwide.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? Do you have any idea of what you just said? Do you even know what causes a woman to become pregnant? :) Do you feel all woman that have an abortion were forced to become pregnant? Do you feel the act of creation between a man and a woman is nothing but a recreational act? Do you feel that the man and woman have a moral obligation to prevent a child from being conceived? Do you feel that abortion is the answer to a man's and woman's lack of sexual morals? Asking again if you feel that the act is just for pleasure and recreation and should be done indiscriminately, and if conception occurs end it with abortion? Just trying to see where you are coming from.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 07:41PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 20:01, critter wrote:
The fact that you say there is no hard evidence as to a bias supports my point. For people to repeatedly insist that there is a liberal bias as if it's a given is dishonest.
[/quote]

I didn't say there is no hard evidence. I said there's all kinds of evidence.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 07:45PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 20:07, critter wrote:
As to the final question, I can't speak to all academics. I think the science in my labs is honest. We test everything before we run it to make everything as neutral as possible and then report exactly what we find. To fudge it is a bigger pain in the arse than I want to put into it. I don't know how other labs do it, but I tend to think it's usually somewhat similar. Academic dishonesty seems to be ferreted out somewhat quickly, i.e., the vaccine-scare.
I should hope that a peer reviewed academic journal is as educated and un-biased a source as one is going to find, in general. It's certainly the format that has the most stringent standards to make it such. If we don't give it credence then there's certainly not another source I'm ready to give precedence over it.
[/quote]

I didn't ask if they were honest or dishonest; I asked if they were biased. If one's mother is a witness to a crime her son is accused of, she's biased. She may testify that it wasn't her son, and she may be telling the truth - he could be innocent. But she still has a bias. To ask it another way, do you think academics are, as a group, politically neutral? If only college professors voted, so you think another Republican president would ever be elected? If I took some of the available evidence and wrote two equally good papers, both supported by ample evidence - one demonstrating a media bias, and one demonstrating that no media bias - do you think the two papers would have an equal probability of being published? Might there not be something akin to "unconscious racism" at play?

I think there's a lot of evidence showing whatever you want to believe about media bias. It's a question of which evidence one finds persuasive. I said that it can't be definitively [i]proven[/i], not that there isn't evidence to support it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 24, 2014 08:48PM)
Yes women should be able to have as many abortions as possible. Should be a category in the Guinness Book of World Records. Make them safe as possible so as many unborn babies as possible can be slaughtered.

Oh wait I mean the other thing.

Women have a right to kill a baby good to hear. Love it. All about a woman and her right to choose. The baby, who had no choice in being conceived has NO right to choose anything. a

A lot like drinking and driving really. You CHOOSE to do it with the first drink. You have CHOSEN to be a mother or at least take a good risk, by having unprotected sex. So yes punish the unborn so we don't "force" a woman to become a mother.

So much sarcasm I am beside myself.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 24, 2014 09:31PM)
[quote]she was a far bigger proponent of the philosophy "If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of" than anyone who's ever posted on NVMS. [/quote]
Ummm...I [i]know[/i] you're not new here...is that like supposed to be a self-referential joke?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2014 09:57PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 16:38, critter wrote:
I aced my feminist psych class and I questioned everything, so we're 50/50.
Your thoughts on Lee emphasize my point though. People shout this liberal media bias from the rooftops with not a shred of evidence. That's sort of exactly what I was saying the problem is. There is not a preponderance of research indicating a liberal media bias so it seems to be just something a talking head made up once upon a time that gets parroted in just about every political discussion there is. If there's going to be intelligent discourse then a language of fictions is not helpful.
[/quote]

Hmmm.
"with not a shred of evidence"

"not a preponderance of research indicating a liberal media bias"

I'm wondering, how much research have you done to make these claims. Have you done research on every study done and you've never found a study that showed any liberal bias, hence your claim, "not a shred of evidence"? Of course the 2nd statement seems to contradict the first. "Not a preponderance would indicate that there is 'some' research indicating a liberal media bias which would indicate that there is at least a shred. (Not that I believe either statement.)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2014 10:02PM)
And btw, I just did a google search on "study showing liberal bias in the media" and the 3rd item was this UCLA study.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/media-bias-is-real-finds-ucla-6664.aspx

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar."
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2014 10:06PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 23:02, rockwall wrote:
And btw, I just did a google search on "study showing liberal bias in the media" and the 3rd item was this UCLA study.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/media-bias-is-real-finds-ucla-6664.aspx
[/quote]
Note that was from 2005. Just saying. But I think you have to admit that study is woefully out of date.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2014 10:11PM)
You're right. I'm sure it's gotten much worse since then.

And btw, critter's one source he mentioned that can't be opened was dated 2005. I didn't notice a complaint from you on that one though.

Just sayin.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2014 10:25PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 23:06, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 23:02, rockwall wrote:
And btw, I just did a google search on "study showing liberal bias in the media" and the 3rd item was this UCLA study.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/media-bias-is-real-finds-ucla-6664.aspx
[/quote]
Note that was from 2005. Just saying. But I think you have to admit that study is woefully out of date.
[/quote]

LOL!!

As opposed to the paper Critter linked to, which was [i]also published in 2005[/i] and relies on studies dating as far back as 1961 (one of the 16 is as recent as 2002; the others are all from the last century) to establish his starting point - that liberal media bias is a myth?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 24, 2014 10:30PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 23:11, rockwall wrote:
You're right. I'm sure it's gotten much worse since then.

And btw, critter's one source he mentioned that can't be opened was dated 2005. I didn't notice a complaint from you on that one though.

Just sayin.
[/quote]

Of course he didn't object. Please hold for ridiculous justification to follow. It should be along any second.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2014 10:41PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 16:40, balducci wrote:
I assume many of you know who Ed Thorp is. Here are his thoughts on global warming:

http://www.edwardothorp.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/globalwarming.doc

Some fascinating stuff at his site. Papers on gambling and investments. Did you know he used to run a multi-million hedge fund, and made a fortune in the markets?

http://www.edwardothorp.com/index.html

[/quote]

His paper on global warming is the sort of link that if I were to post from someone with his credentials writing from a skeptical point of view, I would be laughed at long and hard by those on this board who believe the AGW propaganda. I mean, come on, Edward Thorpe, the noted climatologist? Oh wait, no, he's the guy who wrote "Beat the Dealer" and has less credentials regarding climate science than the local newsman. All he does in the paper you link to is repeat the AGW talking points without anything new to say. I've got to wonder, what did you find interesting in it?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2014 10:58PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 23:41, rockwall wrote:

I mean, come on, Edward Thorpe, the noted climatologist? Oh wait, no, he's the guy who wrote "Beat the Dealer" and has less credentials regarding climate science than the local newsman. All he does in the paper you link to is repeat the AGW talking points without anything new to say. I've got to wonder, what did you find interesting in it?
[/quote]
Perhaps you should read up on the fellow if that is all you know about him.

I think it is interesting what a noted scientist, professor, expert on the management of risk, businessman, entrepreneur, and billionaire (or thereabouts) has to say on the topic of climate change. Unlike your average local newsman, Thorpe understands the science and he is astute enough in finance and economics to understand the economic fallout from climate change.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2014 11:03PM)
Just because someone spouts off the talking points, doesn't mean that they "understand" the science. All it proves is that they "believe" the science. Can you provide any evidence at all that he "understands" the science? Can you point to anything new in his article that hasn't been repeated over and over by every other warmist blogger out there?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 24, 2014 11:11PM)
And those who simply regurgitate the fabrications of the science deniers in right wing blogs are somehow credible?

Please.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2014 11:20PM)
I find Judith Curry extremely credible and much more knowledgeable than you or anyone else on these boards who claims to "understand the science". At least despite my disagreements with Magnus, he admits to this and and simply admits that he is convinced largely by the preponderance of experts who subscribe to the AGW theory.

(I believe this is in essence what Magnus once said but if I'm wrong, I apologize. It's hard to check quotes when so much gets deleted.)

As to your continued use of the name 'science denier', I'll let Ms Curry speak.

"Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble."
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 25, 2014 12:29AM)
I figured the study would be an easy one to read and relatively inclusive. The problem is that I don't know what the rest of y'all have access to read because I view all of my articles through the about one hundred different academic databases that I have free access to because this is what I do, so the PDF popped right up for me.
You can try Google scholar but the first few links I found were looking to cost around $80 a piece.
And, yes, I've seen plenty of meta-analyses on the subject. Enough to have a pretty darned good overview of it. Because these are things I need to have some at least general awareness of as someone who studies and teaches in the area of social influence. I've also spoken to plenty of other social psychologists about it who have reached the same conclusions. But that doesn't matter because "all academics are libs with an agenda." Nothing will count as proof here.
I did misspeak when I said "not a shred" when what I meant was "preponderance." Oops, sorry. But there's not a preponderance. Not according to a single social psychologist I've ever spoken to, which is quite a few at various conferences. (Not claiming no social psychologist believes the opposite, just that I haven't met one that does.)
So y'all can nitpick and twist, I suppose I knew what I was getting into with that, but nothing so far has "proven" me wrong. And there is absolutely nothing that I can offer that will serve as evidence to any of you. If I put up an easily accessible web or news article then you'll say it's from a communist supporting Obama loving source. If I put a peer-reviewed academic article you'll say it's got a liberal bias. Absolutely nothing will be good enough for those who've made up their minds to even remotely consider that maybe your talking point about there being an evil liberal media being out to turn us all red is a red herring.

Here's some less academic stuff that you can view for free that won't matter a lick:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/23/1204303/-How-to-Debunk-the-Liberal-Media-Myth
http://www.upworthy.com/why-the-gop-cant-use-liberal-media-bias-as-an-excuse-anymore
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 25, 2014 12:35AM)
Also, I smell pineapple and I'm pretty sure that's not normal.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 25, 2014 12:48AM)
Actually...

You guys win. You know more about social influence and media bias than me. I totally fold. You guys have a party 'cause you're totally better scientists than me and so much prettier and probably better at juggling and opening pickle jars too. You're the best. You pee the farthest. Enjoy.

[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png[/img]

Nope, not that important. Nighty night.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 25, 2014 12:53AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 01:29, critter wrote:
I figured the study would be an easy one to read and relatively inclusive. The problem is that I don't know what the rest of y'all have access to read because I view all of my articles through the about one hundred different academic databases that I have free access to because this is what I do, so the PDF popped right up for me.
You can try Google scholar but the first few links I found were looking to cost around $80 a piece.
And, yes, I've seen plenty of meta-analyses on the subject. Enough to have a pretty darned good overview of it. Because these are things I need to have some at least general awareness of as someone who studies and teaches in the area of social influence. I've also spoken to plenty of other social psychologists about it who have reached the same conclusions. But that doesn't matter because "all academics are libs with an agenda." Nothing will count as proof here.
I did misspeak when I said "not a shred" when what I meant was "preponderance." Oops, sorry. But there's not a preponderance. Not according to a single social psychologist I've ever spoken to, which is quite a few at various conferences. (Not claiming no social psychologist believes the opposite, just that I haven't met one that does.)
So y'all can nitpick and twist, I suppose I knew what I was getting into with that, but nothing so far has "proven" me wrong. And there is absolutely nothing that I can offer that will serve as evidence to any of you. If I put up an easily accessible web or news article then you'll say it's from a communist supporting Obama loving source. If I put a peer-reviewed academic article you'll say it's got a liberal bias. Absolutely nothing will be good enough for those who've made up their minds to even remotely consider that maybe your talking point about there being an evil liberal media being out to turn us all red is a red herring.

Here's some less academic stuff that you can view for free that won't matter a lick:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/23/1204303/-How-to-Debunk-the-Liberal-Media-Myth
http://www.upworthy.com/why-the-gop-cant-use-liberal-media-bias-as-an-excuse-anymore
[/quote]

As you know, I never claimed that "all academics are libs with an agenda." Would you dispute that most are liberal? Parenti, whom Lee cites a few times in the opening of his paper, is EXTREMELY liberal.

Everything you offer will serve as evidence, though I do believe it's unlikely that I'll find any of it to be proof. I'm sure you're not surprised by that, as I'm not surprised that the evidence in the form of Rockwall's link doesn't persuade you, despite your suggestion that it's those who disagree with you who are closed-minded. The left-wing talking point that there isn't a liberal media bias is as ingrained as the right-wing talking point that there is.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 25, 2014 01:01AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 01:48, critter wrote:
Actually...

You guys win. You know more about social influence and media bias than me. I totally fold. You guys have a party 'cause you're totally better scientists than me and so much prettier and probably better at juggling and opening pickle jars too. You're the best. You pee the farthest. Enjoy.

[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png[/img]

Nope, not that important. Nighty night.
[/quote]

Tim Groseclose, the Stanford Ph.D. who was the lead author of the study linked to by Rockwall (which reached a conclusion that differs from yours)just went to bed and gave up because you know more about social influence and media bias than he does.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 25, 2014 01:08AM)
Way to kick a guy when he's down. You're totes right- Dr. Groseclose's business degree is way cooler than any of mine. You win like a whole bunch.
Have a balloon.
[img]http://nappyheadedblackgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/youre-number-one.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 25, 2014 01:39AM)
Darned insomnia.
Let me explain why I'm frustrated:
I feel like we've been having two different discussions. What I think I'm saying isn't what's coming out or something, and I just don't know how to be clearer. [i]I am absolutely not trying to convince you that there is a right leaning media bias.[/i] I think there is, based on the data I've seen, but I don't care if you believe it. All I was trying to get through is that [i]I don't think that there is sufficient proof of a liberal media bias to call it a fact.[/i] Agree or don't agree. Poke fun. Do what you do. There's my stance. Keep your balloon. You're the winner of your imaginary argument.

Now I really am going to try and get some sleep and do my best not to care whether the internet misunderstands my intent.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Jan 25, 2014 01:58AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 02:39, critter wrote:
[i]I am absolutely not trying to convince you that there is a right leaning media bias.[/i] I think there is, based on the data I've seen, but I don't care if you believe it. [/quote]
Yikes, I just picked up on this part of the thread. Right wing media bias? Wow. If there [i]was[/i] a right wing media bias, the man presently in the White House wouldn't be there. Period.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 25, 2014 02:28AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 02:39, critter wrote:
Darned insomnia.
Let me explain why I'm frustrated:
I feel like we've been having two different discussions. What I think I'm saying isn't what's coming out or something, and I just don't know how to be clearer. [i]I am absolutely not trying to convince you that there is a right leaning media bias.[/i] I think there is, based on the data I've seen, but I don't care if you believe it. All I was trying to get through is that [i]I don't think that there is sufficient proof of a liberal media bias to call it a fact.[/i] Agree or don't agree. Poke fun. Do what you do. There's my stance. Keep your balloon. You're the winner of your imaginary argument.

Now I really am going to try and get some sleep and do my best not to care whether the internet misunderstands my intent.
[/quote]

I'm not trying to convince you that there's a liberal media bias, either, though I do believe there is. What I was trying to get through is that I don't think there is sufficient proof of a lack of a liberal media bias to call it a fact. That depending on what evidence one wishes to use to measure the phenomenon (or lack of one), one could write a fine peer-reviewed article showing a liberal bias, showing a conservative bias, or showing no bias.

With respect to Dr. Groseclose, I was hardly kicking you while you were down. It seemed to me that you brought the credibility card into the discussion (apologies if I misread that), and you're right - it's not my field of study. HOWEVER my opinion [i]does[/i] coincide with that of people whose field of study it is. My reference to him wasn't to suggest that he's right and you're wrong; it WAS to suggest that, you and Dr. Lee notwithstanding, the science isn't settled.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 25, 2014 02:31AM)
Whut? :huh:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 25, 2014 02:34AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 02:39, critter wrote:
Darned insomnia.
Let me explain why I'm frustrated:
I feel like we've been having two different discussions. What I think I'm saying isn't what's coming out or something, and I just don't know how to be clearer. [i]I am absolutely not trying to convince you that there is a right leaning media bias.[/i] I think there is, based on the data I've seen, but I don't care if you believe it. All I was trying to get through is that [i]I don't think that there is sufficient proof of a liberal media bias to call it a fact.[/i] Agree or don't agree. Poke fun. Do what you do. There's my stance. Keep your balloon. You're the winner of your imaginary argument.

Now I really am going to try and get some sleep and do my best not to care whether the internet misunderstands my intent.
[/quote]

BTW, I was certainly not poking fun. I was doing what you were doing - sincerely trying to make a point. Namely that "media bias" is so subjective and subject to so many different possible metrics that it's impossible to definitively claim that it's been "proven" to exist OR not to exist. Sorry for any bad feelings arising from this discussion; I think it's an interesting topic.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 25, 2014 02:47AM)
I apologize for my grouchiness. I think we've actually been trying to make the same point from two different vantage points.
I've had kind of a crap week with my dog having a stroke and teaching my class with bronchitis kicking me in the asthma. I've reached the mindset of a six year old who needs a nap. Sorry.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2014 07:15AM)
Well, then, just to p*ss off everyone then, let me ask:

When was the last time you saw on the news The Nightly Business Report?
When was the last time you saw on the news The Nightly Labor Report?

If you're looking for bias you're looking in the wrong direction. It's not Democrat/Republican or liberal/conservative.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2014 08:40AM)
For examples of how prominent conservatives themselves have admitted that liberal media bias is a myth, see:

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm

See also: http://www.upworthy.com/why-the-gop-cant-use-liberal-media-bias-as-an-excuse-anymore
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 25, 2014 08:50AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 00:20, rockwall wrote:
I find Judith Curry extremely credible and much more knowledgeable than you or anyone else on these boards who claims to "understand the science". At least despite my disagreements with Magnus, he admits to this and and simply admits that he is convinced largely by the preponderance of experts who subscribe to the AGW theory.

[/quote]

Pretty much my point for several years. Without understanding the science I'm stuck with relying on expert judgment.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 25, 2014 09:12AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 09:40, mastermindreader wrote:
For examples of how prominent conservatives themselves have admitted that liberal media bias is a myth, see:

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm

See also: http://www.upworthy.com/why-the-gop-cant-use-liberal-media-bias-as-an-excuse-anymore



[/quote]

A foot out the door, but see, e.g., Andy Rooney for example of a prominent liberal in the news business has admitted that liberal media bias exists.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2014 09:23AM)
The conservatives I cited in the first link apparently disagree with Rooney. And the fact remains that there was more negative coverage of Obama than Romney in the last election, as evidenced in the Upworthy link.

It's also important, I think, to consider which media we're talking about. Overall, how do you suppose talk radio leans in this country?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2014 09:30AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 09:50, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 00:20, rockwall wrote:
I find Judith Curry extremely credible and much more knowledgeable than you or anyone else on these boards who claims to "understand the science". At least despite my disagreements with Magnus, he admits to this and and simply admits that he is convinced largely by the preponderance of experts who subscribe to the AGW theory.

[/quote]

Pretty much my point for several years. Without understanding the science I'm stuck with relying on expert judgment.
[/quote]

It's pretty much been mine point as well. I assume rockwall bases his finding that Judith Curry is more knowledgeable than anyone else here on his own perceived superior knowledge of the topic.

But at least several of us have bothered to read some of the actual studies and don't base our arguments on right-wing science denying blogs.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2014 09:36AM)
Some scholarly witings on the media bias myth: (the first requires a journal subscriptions to read, but the abstract shows what the findings were)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4#.UuPYurTTnDc

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zXu0MIeRoCYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=liberal+bias+media+myth&ots=JnitC4OVc7&sig=fqGmnWL_NPrqtalsRV8hK6dkrHI#v=onepage&q=liberal%20bias%20media%20myth&f=false
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 25, 2014 09:44AM)
So your claim appears to be that this administration is covered with the same or less scrutiny than the previous one?

Doesn't even pass the giggle test.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 25, 2014 09:45AM)
So your claim appears to be that this administration is covered with the same or more scrutiny than the previous one?

Doesn't even pass the giggle test.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2014 09:47AM)
Reread my post and actually look at the references I posted. Your complete misunderstanding (which I hope wasn't intentional) of my post DID pass the giggle test.

I'm still laughing, in fact.

Since I'm sure you didn't follow the link to the studies I posted, here is the abstract from the first one, which I believe accurately sums up the issue:

[quote]Despite research to the contrary, the general public and a significant number of politicians are convinced the U.S. news media have a liberal and pro-Democratic bias. To understand why many people believe the media have such biases, this study tested whether such a perception is related to an observer's own partisan and ideological positions. Findings based on two large national surveys suggest that audiences' ideologies and partisanships affect how they view the media. Strong conservatives and Republicans are more likely to distrust the news media, whereas the best predictor of a media bias perception is political cynicism.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 25, 2014 09:56AM)
I am trying to understand what your claim is regardless of links.

Do you claim this administration is covered with the same or more scrutiny than the previous administration?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2014 10:02AM)
I didn't make a claim on that one way or the other. The Upworthy chart, however, shows that Obama had more negative coverage than Romney on most networks.

My claim is simply that liberal media bias is a myth. And I've posted sources to support that conclusion.

But since you asked, it seems to me that, in general ALL administrations have always been subject to intense media scrutiny. Since the beginning of Obama's tenure, he has been subjected to a level of scrutiny never before seen- from birtherism, allegations of his being a socialist, his teenage drug use, his academic credentials, his religion, etc. etc. et al ad nauseum. (Not to mention the phony "scandals" that are invented regularly, prompting responses from both sides of the political aisle.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 25, 2014 10:21AM)
What mainstream media outlet called him a socialist?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2014 10:33AM)
You really didn't see that discussed constantly on all media outlets after the tea party made the allegation and FOX commentators constantly repeated it? Really?

Only ONE major media outlet constantly called him that, and still does, but my point is that EVERY outlet covered it, as they did the birtherism, etc.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 25, 2014 11:09AM)
Now you are being disingenuous and I think you know it

They covered it ONKY TO MALIGN the Tea Party and Fox. So to claim that is somehow the mainstream media calling him a socialist is very disingenuous. Again you are smart enough to know this is how it is coming across.

So please give me examples of your he mainstream media calling him any of that stuff you said.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 25, 2014 12:21PM)
Only not ONKY
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 25, 2014 12:53PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 10:30, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 09:50, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 00:20, rockwall wrote:
I find Judith Curry extremely credible and much more knowledgeable than you or anyone else on these boards who claims to "understand the science". At least despite my disagreements with Magnus, he admits to this and and simply admits that he is convinced largely by the preponderance of experts who subscribe to the AGW theory.

[/quote]

Pretty much my point for several years. Without understanding the science I'm stuck with relying on expert judgment.
[/quote]

It's pretty much been mine point as well. I assume rockwall bases his finding that Judith Curry is more knowledgeable than anyone else here on his own perceived superior knowledge of the topic.

But at least several of us have bothered to read some of the actual studies and don't base our arguments on right-wing science denying blogs.
[/quote]

"It's pretty much been mine point as well."
Hardly. You label anyone with a different opinion as a "science denier", which by default would include any scientist, like Judith Curry, who is a skeptic.

"I assume rockwall bases his finding that Judith Curry is more knowledgeable than anyone else here on his own perceived superior knowledge of the topic"

No, I don’t make the stupid proclamation that I have a superior knowledge of the topic as do some here. I base it on her credentials and research and your lack of both. Your implication that you know more about the science than someone like Judith Curry is almost as ridiculous, (although not quite), as me claiming to know more about mentalism than you.

I think the term you like to use, "understand the science", makes you feel smarter than you are. (btw, speed reading through the IPCC reports isn't the same as understanding them.)

Based on your arguments within this thread, (I went back and reviewed them), which consist almost entirely of name calling and ad hominem attacks, if I had to pick ONE person here who probably DOESN’T understand the science, it would be you.

All your responses show that you are one of the least likely people to be interested in intelligent debate here.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 25, 2014 01:05PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-24 23:11, rockwall wrote:

And btw, critter's one source he mentioned that can't be opened was dated 2005. I didn't notice a complaint from you on that one though.

Just sayin.
[/quote]
Perhaps you may have noticed that I was not particularly active in this forum for several days, and I only commented on post(s) in this thread following the one I made here yesterday. I have not read what was posted above for several days. I did not see critter's post at the time, let alone the link of his you mention.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 25, 2014 01:28PM)
None of that stopped you from making the comment now did it?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 25, 2014 02:07PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 14:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

None of that stopped you from making the comment now did it?
[/quote]
I commented on a post I saw. I did not comment on a post I did not see. (You would rather I comment on what I did not see, and not comment on what I did read and see?)

And why would I make the comment now, as rockwall just made it a few posts back for me?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 25, 2014 02:46PM)
Okay, Danny, here is a comment for you regarding both Critter and Rockwall's 2005 links.

Whatever the situation in 2005 was, my observation now would be that since 2005 the liberal media has significantly declined in popularity and influence whereas the popularity and influence of the right wing media has increased tremendously. I am only commenting on the U.S. experience. It is likely to be different in some other countries.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 25, 2014 04:41PM)
That's an interesting observation balducci and I would agree that there appears to be some facts to support it. For instance, I believe that viewership for MSNBC and CNN have dropped steadily while Fox News has increased viewership. However, wouldn't you agree that 'popularity and influence' are completely different than quantity. If we were to agree that nearly all TV news services are liberal except for Fox News, as discovered by the study I linked to, even if those liberal news services are less popular, it would still be true that the liberal news services greatly outnumbered the conservative news services.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2014 06:21PM)
Still waiting for the nightly--or even weekly--Labor Report.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 25, 2014 07:12PM)
I think that's on Ed's show.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 25, 2014 07:23PM)
They listen to everyone. They tell stories, news stories, the new stories for today, then they listen and see which way the herd moves. They test this and that story and that's how they shape and move the herd to where they want it to go. They don't spy on everyone for nothing you know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5upqYOuH0jQ
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 25, 2014 07:54PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 17:41, rockwall wrote:
That's an interesting observation balducci and I would agree that there appears to be some facts to support it. For instance, I believe that viewership for MSNBC and CNN have dropped steadily while Fox News has increased viewership. However, wouldn't you agree that 'popularity and influence' are completely different than quantity. If we were to agree that nearly all TV news services are liberal except for Fox News, as discovered by the study I linked to, even if those liberal news services are less popular, it would still be true that the liberal news services greatly outnumbered the conservative news services.

[/quote]

Actually, FOX viewership as decreased significantly in the 24-40 demographic. It has gone up among those over sixty.

Liberal Media Bias, however, remains a myth. (Except, of course, on right wing media.)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 25, 2014 09:27PM)
A Planet of Civic Laboratories

The Future of Cities, Information, and Inclusion

Over the next decade, cities will continue to grow larger and more rapidly. At the same time, new technologies will unlock massive streams of data about cities and their residents.

See more at: http://www.iftf.org/our-work/global-landscape/human-settlement/the-future-of-cities-
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 25, 2014 10:21PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 17:41, rockwall wrote:
That's an interesting observation balducci and I would agree that there appears to be some facts to support it. For instance, I believe that viewership for MSNBC and CNN have dropped steadily while Fox News has increased viewership. However, wouldn't you agree that 'popularity and influence' are completely different than quantity. If we were to agree that nearly all TV news services are liberal except for Fox News, as discovered by the study I linked to, even if those liberal news services are less popular, it would still be true that the liberal news services greatly outnumbered the conservative news services.
[/quote]
Somewhat different than quantity, sure. Also different from quality.

At the same time, popularity helps drive quantity. Something is popular, at least something that can be copied / reproduced, there will tend to be more of it made available.

I'm aware of (and tend to follow) more conservative news sites on the web, than I am aware of and follow liberal ones. Of course, that is just my experience, a sample of one person.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 25, 2014 10:27PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 23:21, balducci wrote:
...
At the same time, popularity helps drive quantity. Something is popular, at least something that can be copied / reproduced, there will tend to be more of it made available.
...

[/quote]

You would think, wouldn't you. And yet, the farther left MSNBC goes, the lower it's viewership falls. Maybe it'll just take more time.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2014 11:26PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 20:12, rockwall wrote:
I think that's on Ed's show.
[/quote]
Not even close. There is no labor report on any of the mainstream or cable network stations. There's a reason for that and it isn't because labor news isn't newsworthy.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 25, 2014 11:43PM)
Maybe it is just nobody cares.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 26, 2014 12:53AM)
Nothing is real?

They are all dead?

They have run out of paper?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2014 07:33AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 00:43, Dannydoyle wrote:
Maybe it is just nobody cares.
[/quote]
Getting closer. Not nobody, since the majority of people in the US are workers, but somebodies.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 26, 2014 08:44AM)
Not in the way you wish to think of them.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 26, 2014 09:57AM)
If by labor report, you mean the employment situation, then I know of at least one administration that certainly doesn't want anyone to know what's really going on.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2014 10:40AM)
No, by labor report I mean news of use to workers, in the same way that the business report is of use to employers and investors.
If you're interested, I'll expand in a later post. Real unemployment figures and the reason for them is only one aspect.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 26, 2014 10:56AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 10:57, rockwall wrote:
If by labor report, you mean the employment situation, then I know of at least one administration that certainly doesn't want anyone to know what's really going on.
[/quote]

Yes, but that administration has been out of office for six years.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2014 11:05AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 10:23, mastermindreader wrote:
The conservatives I cited in the first link apparently disagree with Rooney. And the fact remains that there was more negative coverage of Obama than Romney in the last election, as evidenced in the Upworthy link.

It's also important, I think, to consider which media we're talking about. Overall, how do you suppose talk radio leans in this country?
[/quote]

I think that in general, talk radio slants right, and print and television media slants left.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2014 11:07AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 10:36, mastermindreader wrote:
Some scholarly witings on the media bias myth: (the first requires a journal subscriptions to read, but the abstract shows what the findings were)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4#.UuPYurTTnDc

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zXu0MIeRoCYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=liberal+bias+media+myth&ots=JnitC4OVc7&sig=fqGmnWL_NPrqtalsRV8hK6dkrHI#v=onepage&q=liberal%20bias%20media%20myth&f=false


[/quote]

Thanks for the links. Here's a scholarly writing on the myth of the lack of a liberal media bias: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 26, 2014 11:30AM)
For me the most interesting facet of the media bias debate is the lack if agreement as to what counts as "liberal" or "conservative", let alone "left" or "right". The contortions undertaken to establish these ill-defined positions flicker between the absurd and the pornographic.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 26, 2014 11:34AM)
Neither left nor right exists in reality, what exists is the inner and outer worlds.

Out of all the states in all the world name one head of state who does not go along with the believers. There is one.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 26, 2014 11:40AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 12:07, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 10:36, mastermindreader wrote:
Some scholarly witings on the media bias myth: (the first requires a journal subscriptions to read, but the abstract shows what the findings were)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4#.UuPYurTTnDc

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zXu0MIeRoCYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=liberal+bias+media+myth&ots=JnitC4OVc7&sig=fqGmnWL_NPrqtalsRV8hK6dkrHI#v=onepage&q=liberal%20bias%20media%20myth&f=false
[/quote]

Thanks for the links. Here's a scholarly writing on the myth of the lack of a liberal media bias: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
[/quote]
Why do so many here cite outdated 2005 articles? The landscape has changed enormously since then.

Anyway, note that article starts off with / is based upon a cherry picked biased sample: "These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample." So an unbiased news story followed immediately by a one-sided editorial about how the viewer should interpret the facts is considered 'fair and balanced' according to this study. I would disagree, as I think most would.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2014 11:43AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 12:40, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 12:07, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 10:36, mastermindreader wrote:
Some scholarly witings on the media bias myth: (the first requires a journal subscriptions to read, but the abstract shows what the findings were)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4#.UuPYurTTnDc

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zXu0MIeRoCYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=liberal+bias+media+myth&ots=JnitC4OVc7&sig=fqGmnWL_NPrqtalsRV8hK6dkrHI#v=onepage&q=liberal%20bias%20media%20myth&f=false
[/quote]

Thanks for the links. Here's a scholarly writing on the myth of the lack of a liberal media bias: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
[/quote]
Why do so many here cite outdated 2005 articles? The landscape has changed enormously since then.

Anyway, note that article starts off with / is based upon a cherry picked biased sample: "These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample." So an unbiased news story followed immediately by a one-sided editorial about how the viewer should interpret the facts is considered 'fair and balanced' according to this study. I would disagree, as I think most would.


[/quote]

What is it that leads you to believe that there's been a huge change in whether or not there exists a media bias, and what do you think caused the perceived change?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 26, 2014 11:56AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 12:40, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 12:07, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-25 10:36, mastermindreader wrote:
Some scholarly witings on the media bias myth: (the first requires a journal subscriptions to read, but the abstract shows what the findings were)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_4#.UuPYurTTnDc

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zXu0MIeRoCYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=liberal+bias+media+myth&ots=JnitC4OVc7&sig=fqGmnWL_NPrqtalsRV8hK6dkrHI#v=onepage&q=liberal%20bias%20media%20myth&f=false
[/quote]

Thanks for the links. Here's a scholarly writing on the myth of the lack of a liberal media bias: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
[/quote]
Why do so many here cite outdated 2005 articles? The landscape has changed enormously since then.

Anyway, note that article starts off with / is based upon a cherry picked biased sample: "These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample." So an unbiased news story followed immediately by a one-sided editorial about how the viewer should interpret the facts is considered 'fair and balanced' according to this study. I would disagree, as I think most would.


[/quote]

Even more perplexing are their definitions of left and right wing biases and his measuring tool. They counted references to "think tanks" by the media outlets and compared relative frequency of mention against mention by members of congress. By definition a reference by a Democrat is "left" and a mention by a Republican is "right".

I haven't studied the article in detail, but this methodology looks ver weak to me.

I haven't looked at the Yee article. Maybe later today.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 26, 2014 11:59AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 12:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:

What is it that leads you to believe that there's been a huge change in whether or not there exists a media bias, and what do you think caused the perceived change?
[/quote]
Previously addressed in my posts above, over the last day or so.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2014 12:17PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 12:40, balducci wrote:
Why do so many here cite outdated 2005 articles?
[/quote]

I guess in my case, the reason would be that I don't find a compelling argument that they're outdated. For that reason, I also wouldn't dismiss an article with a conclusion that I disagreed with merely because it's 8-9 years old.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 26, 2014 12:30PM)
For the record, I never said I disagreed with it "merely because it's 8-9 years old".
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 26, 2014 12:40PM)
Check this list of most popular right wing sites:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/the-100-most-popular-conservative-websites-for-2013/

At least 3 of the top 10 did not even exist in 2005.

Probably the situation on the left has also significantly changed in the last decade, in one way or another.

So the original article is outdated not "merely because it's 8-9 years old" ... but because factually it is old enough that its sample is no longer timely and not representative of today's environment.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 26, 2014 12:43PM)
Which political persuasion thoroughly dominates American talk radio?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 26, 2014 12:46PM)
Free market?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2014 12:47PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 13:30, balducci wrote:
For the record, I never said I disagreed with it "merely because it's 8-9 years old".

[/quote]

For the record, I never said or suggested that you did.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2014 12:48PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 13:43, mastermindreader wrote:
Which political persuasion thoroughly dominates American talk radio?
[/quote]


[quote]
On 2014-01-26 12:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think that in general, talk radio slants right, and print and television media slants left.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 26, 2014 02:06PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 13:43, mastermindreader wrote:
Which political persuasion thoroughly dominates American talk radio?
[/quote]

Definitely right wing. Although, not for lack of trying by the left. See, it's not hard for me to admit it. I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit the truth about the networks.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 26, 2014 02:09PM)
Here is a rather large collection of multiple studies on the subject. (Now before Bob makes his normal ad hominem attack about the source, they aren't the ones doing the studies, they are just cataloging studies done by others.)

http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/media-bias-101-what-journalists-really-think-and-what-public-thinks-about-them
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 26, 2014 02:11PM)
50 Most Popular Liberal Websites (To be fair)

http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/

So who is correct?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 26, 2014 03:17PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 15:06, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 13:43, mastermindreader wrote:
Which political persuasion thoroughly dominates American talk radio?
[/quote]

Definitely right wing. Although, not for lack of trying by the left. See, it's not hard for me to admit it. I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit the truth about the networks.
[/quote]

To speculate, some positions are easier to state, easier to get emotional about, and easier to raise public emotions. Two seconds on facebook will tell you what they are.

If you look at the ones that might tip an election, I think you get a sense of what talk radio wants to broadcast. Simple message, emotional clarity, election issues. Today, those happen to be in "shallow right".

Please note that there are many intelligent, thoughtful and substantial conservative beliefs. But they don't make it onto talk radio either.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 26, 2014 03:19PM)
Isn't the United States supposed to be right wing anyway? I mean, isn't the sworn enemy the capitalists the communists and isn't the United States the capitalists and China communists? Left Right and all that. Isn't Right the American way?

Just asking.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 26, 2014 03:30PM)
Depends on what you mean by right and left.

The United States believes that people have a right to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 26, 2014 03:45PM)
Does the United States believe that its people have a right own property or believe it should owned by the state?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 26, 2014 03:56PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 15:11, Dennis Michael wrote:
50 Most Popular Liberal Websites (To be fair)

http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/

So who is correct?
[/quote]
To be fair? What are you talking about? What was unfair before? What do you mean who is correct?

I posted the link

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/the-100-most-popular-conservative-websites-for-2013/

to make the point that many of the popular right wing sites today (including several in the top 10) did not even exist back in 2005.

Your link does not contradict that in any way. If anything, it just shows that the landscape on the left has also changed (which I previously suggested was probably the case).

So thanks for reinforcing my point.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 26, 2014 06:23PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 16:45, tommy wrote:
Does the United States believe that its people have a right own property or believe it should owned by the state?
[/quote]

We do believe people have a right to own property.

But I don't see how that distinguishes us from England, Canada, France, Germany, Israel and other ultra far-left countries.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 26, 2014 08:01PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 13:40, balducci wrote:
Check this list of most popular right wing sites:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/the-100-most-popular-conservative-websites-for-2013/

At least 3 of the top 10 did not even exist in 2005.

Probably the situation on the left has also significantly changed in the last decade, in one way or another.

So the original article is outdated not "merely because it's 8-9 years old" ... but because factually it is old enough that its sample is no longer timely and not representative of today's environment.
[/quote]

First off. Why a 2005 study? Well, simply because I wasn't able to find one more recent with a quick search.

Secondly. The article was about TV news. The players haven't really changed much if at all since 2005. Even so, I'm not even sure how the fact that there are new left and right wing websites since then is a convincing argument that the political landscape has changed.

Thirdly. Yes, you are right about one thing. There has been at least one important change since 2005. Since then, the press has helped elect a far left President who the majority of the press feels the need to protect. MSNBC has changed their programming to become a mouth piece for the left. (Which they pretty much admit to.) So, as I said before, if anything, it has become more left leaning since 2005.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 26, 2014 10:21PM)
[img]https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1560514_10151963748398460_457494702_n.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Peter McMillan (Jan 26, 2014 11:47PM)
The United States is supposed to be a Representative Republic who's three branches of government are controlled by The Constitution as ratified and properly amended. It is administered by elected representatives who are sent to the Federal seat. Their are Not to be influenced by special interest groups, nor bought off by those with the means to do so. They are to see to the business of the Republic by measuring it against the guidelines set up in the amended Constitution. The representatives are sent to express the will of the people they represent, and unless they have thoroughly studied every piece of legislation they vote for, they betray the trust of those who put them in office.

Today the United States government is an Oligarchy who has taken power unto itself not provided for in the Constitution. There for, private property is no longer a reality today, nor has it been for quite some time. (If Mr. Haydn is to be believed and is a time traveler, he can attest to this). The test for this is simple. Do not pay your assessed tax on the dwelling YOU put the down payment on, YOU pay the insurance on, YOU pay the mortgage on as well as the maintenance and up keep. In short order the True Owner will come and displace you for not paying what THEY determine you must. In addition, every BOND scheme that gets passed puts your property up for collateral for the government, if you agree to the project or not. This is not explained to voters before the vote. They are told just enough to provoke their emotions.

And please don't use the old saw "that is the cost of living in a 'Free' country. There is far to much fraud waste and abuse of the public funds at all levels for that to hold water. Generations of conniving politicians, smart aleck lawyers, and apathetic voters have allowed this country to become what it is. Still I stay and fight as I am able to regain the Republic we are ment to be.

Dues Paid to Voice My Opinion as a Vietnam/Gulf War Vet, Taxpayer and US Citizen by Birth.

Hark, the beat of the Drones.......

Peter McMillan
Yr Obt Svt
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 27, 2014 01:44AM)
Anyhow it is the Marxist Totalitarian Banker the Rockefeller who is behind this warming swindle and it's not even science but is a non-falsifyable Temple of Delphi Oracle prophesy as a matter of fact.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 27, 2014 05:40AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 13:43, mastermindreader wrote:
Which political persuasion thoroughly dominates American talk radio?
[/quote]

That's an easy one where I live - right wing radio dominates. In fact, I can't even find a left wing talk radio program! In addition to the nationally broadcast shows (Limbaugh, Hannity), we've got our own local right wing personalities, including our corrupt former republican governor who has his own show (despite having served time for bribery and other offenses). One station is SO entrenched in conservatism that even the traffic guy and sports guy often espouse their disdain for the left! The theme is simple - fear mongering and obfuscation of the facts. And that sort of thing draws attention. However, CT is and pretty much always has been a blue state (especially in presidential elections), so kudos to the populace here for not buying into the local talk radio nonsense.


Ron
:)
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 27, 2014 05:55AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 00:47, Peter McMillan wrote:
The United States is supposed to be a Representative Republic who's three branches of government are controlled by The Constitution as ratified and properly amended. It is administered by elected representatives who are sent to the Federal seat. Their are Not to be influenced by special interest groups, nor bought off by those with the means to do so. They are to see to the business of the Republic by measuring it against the guidelines set up in the amended Constitution. The representatives are sent to express the will of the people they represent, and unless they have thoroughly studied every piece of legislation they vote for, they betray the trust of those who put them in office.

Today the United States government is an Oligarchy who has taken power unto itself not provided for in the Constitution. There for, private property is no longer a reality today, nor has it been for quite some time. (If Mr. Haydn is to be believed and is a time traveler, he can attest to this). The test for this is simple. Do not pay your assessed tax on the dwelling YOU put the down payment on, YOU pay the insurance on, YOU pay the mortgage on as well as the maintenance and up keep. In short order the True Owner will come and displace you for not paying what THEY determine you must. In addition, every BOND scheme that gets passed puts your property up for collateral for the government, if you agree to the project or not. This is not explained to voters before the vote. They are told just enough to provoke their emotions.

And please don't use the old saw "that is the cost of living in a 'Free' country. There is far to much fraud waste and abuse of the public funds at all levels for that to hold water. Generations of conniving politicians, smart aleck lawyers, and apathetic voters have allowed this country to become what it is. Still I stay and fight as I am able to regain the Republic we are ment to be.

Dues Paid to Voice My Opinion as a Vietnam/Gulf War Vet, Taxpayer and US Citizen by Birth.

Hark, the beat of the Drones.......

Peter McMillan
Yr Obt Svt
[/quote]

Amen
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 27, 2014 07:46AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 21:01, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 13:40, balducci wrote:
Check this list of most popular right wing sites:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/the-100-most-popular-conservative-websites-for-2013/

At least 3 of the top 10 did not even exist in 2005.

Probably the situation on the left has also significantly changed in the last decade, in one way or another.

So the original article is outdated not "merely because it's 8-9 years old" ... but because factually it is old enough that its sample is no longer timely and not representative of today's environment.
[/quote]

First off. Why a 2005 study? Well, simply because I wasn't able to find one more recent with a quick search.

Secondly. The article was about TV news. The players haven't really changed much if at all since 2005. Even so, I'm not even sure how the fact that there are new left and right wing websites since then is a convincing argument that the political landscape has changed.
[/quote]
It was about U.S. media, including TV news. It also included newspapers, magazines, and at least one website in its survey, among these the New York Times, Washington Times, USA Today, Drudge Report, Newsweek, etc. (e.g. see the first two pages, or look at Table III).

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 27, 2014 08:12AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 08:46, balducci wrote:

It was about U.S. media, including TV news. It also included newspapers, magazines, and at least one website in its survey, among these the New York Times, Washington Times, USA Today, Drudge Report, Newsweek, etc. (e.g. see the first two pages, or look at Table III).

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf

[/quote]

You're right. I should have gone back and re-read it before commenting. However, as you point out, the Drudge Report is really the only website that they used in the report so it definitely didn't include internet blog sites in the study. That of course makes sense, since the study was based on 'news reporting' and not commentary.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 27, 2014 11:09AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 06:40, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 13:43, mastermindreader wrote:
Which political persuasion thoroughly dominates American talk radio?
[/quote]

That's an easy one where I live - right wing radio dominates. In fact, I can't even find a left wing talk radio program! In addition to the nationally broadcast shows (Limbaugh, Hannity), we've got our own local right wing personalities, including our corrupt former republican governor who has his own show (despite having served time for bribery and other offenses). One station is SO entrenched in conservatism that even the traffic guy and sports guy often espouse their disdain for the left! The theme is simple - fear mongering and obfuscation of the facts. And that sort of thing draws attention. However, CT is and pretty much always has been a blue state (especially in presidential elections), so kudos to the populace here for not buying into the local talk radio nonsense.


Ron
:)
[/quote]

Exactly- because no left wing radio show can hold the attention of listeners and come up with good talking points! So they are taken off the air. It's hard for the left to hold a conversation and be civil without using cuss words and speaking in an irrational behavior. Just listen to Bill Maher spew vulgarity at the right. That's why he is on a paid cable station- his content would never be allowed elsewhere.

RNK
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 27, 2014 11:29AM)
I guess you think Rush Limbaugh is a model of class and good taste.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 27, 2014 11:40AM)
Only when compared to left wing talk. Otherwise he is a crass buffoon.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 27, 2014 11:47AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 12:40, Dannydoyle wrote:
Only when compared to left wing talk. Otherwise he is a crass buffoon.
[/quote]

He looks pretty classy if you compare him to Mark Levin, too.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 27, 2014 11:57AM)
True. I am shocked at Levin being a constitutional lawyer to tell you the truth.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 27, 2014 12:00PM)
I don't really want to get into this debate, because it's pretty pointless, but talk radio is dominated by two or three companies, most noteably ClearChannel. ClearChannel nationally syndicates Rush and the other right wing hosts. They recently pulled off one of the last liberal stations in the SF Bay Area and replaced it with all right wing, all the time. Now, one of the hosts they yanked had the best ratings on the station, outperforming hosts like Glenn Beck, but no matter- he was kicked off the air. Meanwhile, the last terrestrial station that runs that host (who's name is Norman Goldman, by the way) is having its servers slammed daily with so many people live-streaming the program.

To be fair, maybe it's cheaper for Clear Channel to run their syndicated hosts, and get national radio spots, rather than running local stations with higher rated programs for the area, and ads from local businesses. In fact, it probably is- they can run a skeleton crew in the satellite station, rather than having employees at the local level. But it sure doesn't have much to do with local ratings- and it's not a good solution for local radio, either.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 27, 2014 12:02PM)
All that being said I don't care if people act like Ed Schultz. Fine with me if you find a market I am all for it. No problem. Just don't complain when a free market decides with their dials.

When Limbaugh started he had nada. Gotta give them he guy credit for building an empire preaching to the choir. Good for him. Always interesting to listen to the complaining from the haters. Put up a product that competes. Fairly easy.

No they want to pass laws to make it so they can compete.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 27, 2014 12:13PM)
Danny, that's what I said- it's NOT free market. Clear Channel and Infinity own the majority of the market, and have decided to not run local programming (or any liberal programs.) It's as free market as the local cable company... you're welcome to try getting cable from another provider, if you can find one.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 27, 2014 12:14PM)
Yes once you have lost change definitions and pass laws to get your opinion across. Classic.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 27, 2014 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 12:29, mastermindreader wrote:
I guess you think Rush Limbaugh is a model of class and good taste.
[/quote]

Agree with Dannydoyle- compared to the left he is a class act.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 27, 2014 12:57PM)
No one, on either side of the political spectrum, has even approached the depths of Limbaugh's depravity and utter contempt for facts.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2014 01:17PM)
It is my opinion that there is a difference between preaching and inciting.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 27, 2014 01:37PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 13:57, mastermindreader wrote:
No one, on either side of the political spectrum, has even approached the depths of Limbaugh's depravity and utter contempt for facts.
[/quote]

Yrs they are all paragons of virtue
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 27, 2014 02:32PM)
Well at least we all agree that the worst features of totalitarian socialist regimes have their roots in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and that the worst features of the totalitarian socialist warmers also have their roots in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Message: Posted by: Peter McMillan (Jan 27, 2014 02:48PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 13:57, mastermindreader wrote:
No one, on either side of the political spectrum, has even approached the depths of Limbaugh's depravity and utter contempt for facts.
[/quote]


The legend has spoken, heed the word of the legend. Unless you are able to think, reason, and come to your own conclusions.
BE WARNED - independent thought and posting of same will raise the ire of the legend and drones.

Pete McMillan
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Jan 27, 2014 02:59PM)
This thread has become so informative and entertaining that I fear it is in serious risk of being removed with no warning or reason given.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2014 03:08PM)
I like Ike.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 27, 2014 03:10PM)
The good news is it will teach us that one should not poison the well of ones enemy and to look after the olive trees in wartime.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 27, 2014 03:37PM)
Tommy = The Cheshire Cat =The Mad Hatter?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jan 27, 2014 05:57PM)
Bottom line ... Scientists DO NOT agree on Global Warming ....!!!!!!!!!!!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 27, 2014 05:58PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 18:57, Slim King wrote:
Bottom line ... Scientists DO NOT agree on Global Warming ....!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

Technically correct. Only the vast majority agree.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 27, 2014 06:03PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 12:09, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 06:40, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-26 13:43, mastermindreader wrote:
Which political persuasion thoroughly dominates American talk radio?
[/quote]

That's an easy one where I live - right wing radio dominates. In fact, I can't even find a left wing talk radio program! In addition to the nationally broadcast shows (Limbaugh, Hannity), we've got our own local right wing personalities, including our corrupt former republican governor who has his own show (despite having served time for bribery and other offenses). One station is SO entrenched in conservatism that even the traffic guy and sports guy often espouse their disdain for the left! The theme is simple - fear mongering and obfuscation of the facts. And that sort of thing draws attention. However, CT is and pretty much always has been a blue state (especially in presidential elections), so kudos to the populace here for not buying into the local talk radio nonsense.


Ron
:)
[/quote]

Exactly- because no left wing radio show can hold the attention of listeners and come up with good talking points! So they are taken off the air. It's hard for the left to hold a conversation and be civil without using cuss words and speaking in an irrational behavior. Just listen to Bill Maher spew vulgarity at the right. That's why he is on a paid cable station- his content would never be allowed elsewhere.

RNK
[/quote]

LOL! Speaking of talking points, you would think that if the virtually unopposed right-wing radio here had such good talking points that the state wouldn't have voted for Obama the last 2 elections AND voted in a Democrat Governor! Way to go Connecticut right-wing radio! Whatever you're doing it's working... for Democrats!


Ron
:)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 27, 2014 06:05PM)
We know they agree, our question is why do they agree?

Club Of Rome Founder Proposed “Global Matrix” Of Manufactured Consent

http://explosivereports.com/2013/06/19/club-of-rome-founder-proposed-global-matrix-of-manufactured-consent/
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 27, 2014 06:06PM)
Good point, Ron. Since around 1992, with the advent of Rush Limbaugh and FOX news, the GOP has won significantly fewer major elections than it did in the previous twenty year period.

The fact that the average age of Fox viewers is 68 only indicates that things will keep progressing in the same direction.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 27, 2014 06:17PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 19:06, mastermindreader wrote:
Good point, Ron. Since around 1992, with the advent of Rush Limbaugh and FOX news, the GOP has won significantly fewer major elections than it did in the previous twenty year period.

The fact that the average age of Fox viewers is 68 only indicates that things will keep progressing in the same direction.
[/quote]

Well, actually it's a bad point. As we all know, correlation isn't causation,
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 27, 2014 06:21PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 13:57, mastermindreader wrote:
No one, on either side of the political spectrum, has even approached the depths of Limbaugh's depravity and utter contempt for facts.
[/quote]

Agree. On today's Limbaugh show (remember, I listen to him a fair amount because right-wing radio dominates here) he was talking about Obama's upcoming State of the Union address. He said right at the outset that he wouldn't be referring to it as the "State of The Union", but rather the "State of The Coup." So for his entire show (I surmise the entire show - I only got to listen to 30 minutes or so) he did indeed refer to the "State of The Coup" many times. Now, let me remind you of what a coup is:

"a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government"

So the clear implication is that Obama gained power suddenly, illegally, and violently. Aside from being beyond absurd, it's a dog-whistle to the less stable among us, and Limbaugh KNOWS this. But it's only Monday. There's a lot more hatred and misinformation for Limbaugh to spew as the week progresses.

Ron
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 27, 2014 06:21PM)
Right wing media certainly hasn't been a benefit to GOP national candidates. They've forced too many candidates into the kind of extremism that is being increasingly rejected throughout most of the country.

Interesting article at http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/fox-news-2014-2/
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2014 06:21PM)
I reckon it sort of depends on what science they are involved in too. Political science, meteorology, astro-physics, astroglide-physics... I dunno.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 27, 2014 06:28PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 19:21, mastermindreader wrote:
Right wing media certainly hasn't been a benefit to GOP national candidates. They've forced too many candidates into the kind of extremism that is being increasingly rejected throughout most of the country.

Interesting article at http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/fox-news-2014-2/
[/quote]

That certainly may be, but similarly, I don't think Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Jeannie Garafolo, Keith Olberman, etc. do the Democrats any favors when the occasional moderate stumbles into their path. Mostly, they're (on both sides) just good for preaching to the choir.

Although having said that, when I've been able to temporarily stomach Mark Levin, he seems to be directly helping the Democrats more than most by going after Republicans whom he doesn't find conservative enough.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 27, 2014 06:29PM)
Olbermann is long gone and back to sports reporting.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 27, 2014 06:30PM)
I love to watch the extreme left wing here be critical of the extreme right wing.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 27, 2014 06:39PM)
My nephew has just become a sports reporter. He was sent out to interview his hero and got so emotional that he couldn't speak when he met him.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 27, 2014 07:19PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 19:30, Dannydoyle wrote:
I love to watch the extreme left wing here be critical of the extreme right wing.
[/quote]

Who would the extreme left wing be, Danny? I can't stand Mark Levin.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 27, 2014 08:17PM)
Bob I would like to preface my answer with I think you are a good person. I like you and would probably enjoy talking. I do not think you mean anyone any harm and love your country as much as anyone and more than most.

That being said you are VERY left of center with your views. As is your absolute right in America. It is fine to view the world that way but Bob you are hyper partisan. It is what it is.

Please read the first part I wrote as it is more important than the last. I would rather we talked about things like cleaning up our planet which I think we can all agree on as opposed to things that result in a stalemate of action.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 27, 2014 09:45PM)
I agree with your last paragraph.

It goes without saying, Danny, that I like you as a person too. And, yes, I am left of center. But, as you may have noticed over the years, that is not the case when it comes to matters of national security. I don't believe I'm an extremist. (But, of course, I'm sure that those on the far right would disagree. Especially since many in the extreme right of the GOP are attacking their own moderate members as RINOS for not being conservative enough. To them I guess I'd be a far left wacko.)
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 28, 2014 11:24AM)
http://www.thecuckoosnest.com/zencart/zencart138/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=54_55_60&products_id=6452

I guess it's global warming causing the rare extreme cold/snow/ice across the south?

RNK
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 28, 2014 11:35AM)
"Global" means just that. It doesn't refer to temperatures on given days in given places. As far as I know, the South is not global. It is a fact that the average global temperature is rising.

And, of course, warming results in more moisture in the air which, in turn, increases the likelihood of snow and other precipitation.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 28, 2014 12:10PM)
LOL
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 28, 2014 12:20PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 18:58, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 18:57, Slim King wrote:
Bottom line ... Scientists DO NOT agree on Global Warming ....!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

Technically correct. Only the vast majority agree.
[/quote]

So now majority rules.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 28, 2014 12:32PM)
He stated a fact, Dennis. A simple, pure fact. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that a) the earth is in a warming period, and b)that some of the warming is due to human activity. It's a fact.

The question of whether they are correct is another matter. As for "majority rules"--it's not clear what you are talking about. Who rules what?

What should non-experts like you and me believe? Can't speak for you, but I have no reasonable grounds to think that I know more or better than the climate scientists.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 28, 2014 12:50PM)
Majority rules is a reference to other postings on "Experts"
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 28, 2014 12:54PM)
Keeping in mind that I am no climate expert, the way it was explained to me is that this climate change stuff is causing faster and more extreme fluctuations in all kinds of weather, and that's a problem. There was also something about air currents but I got bored and wandered off to look for cake.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 28, 2014 01:06PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-28 13:50, Dennis Michael wrote:
Majority rules is a reference to other postings on "Experts"
[/quote]

Humility is a virtue.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 28, 2014 01:07PM)
It is not a fact. It's an illusion created by Manipulation of Delphi. Manipulation of a Delphi has been known for many years: “Manipulation of a Delphi to produce the results desired by one certain individual or group of individuals is increasingly being mentioned in the literature as a danger but little has been done to study the problem. Important policy decisions are being made every day in government, business, education, and other organizations. These decisions are heavily impacted by information obtained by the use of the Delphi technique.” -Nelson, Bradley William, "The statistical manipulation of Delphi statements" (1977). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 835. This fellow back then went into the methods of it's Manipulation. These Manipulations are as well known to the experts in this game as false shuffles are expert magicians. You believers, you magicians eh, you are such Muggles.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 28, 2014 09:01PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-28 13:32, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
He stated a fact, Dennis. A simple, pure fact. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that a) the earth is in a warming period, and b)that some of the warming is due to human activity. It's a fact.

...
[/quote]

Actually, that's not what he stated at all, although you've done a good job of stating what polls actually reveal. You may be surprised to know that most climate skeptics agree with those two statements. Bob said that most climate scientists agree on global warming. If you were to ask him to elaborate, I think his description of WHAT they agree on would be quite different than the two points you made above.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 28, 2014 09:09PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-28 22:01, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-28 13:32, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
He stated a fact, Dennis. A simple, pure fact. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that a) the earth is in a warming period, and b)that some of the warming is due to human activity. It's a fact.

...
[/quote]

Actually, that's not what he stated at all, although you've done a good job of stating what polls actually reveal. You may be surprised to know that most climate skeptics agree with those two statements. Bob said that most climate scientists agree on global warming. If you were to ask him to elaborate, I think his description of WHAT they agree on would be quite different than the two points you made above.

[/quote]

Well I do think it's what he stated. But I really don't know what most climate skeptics think. If you are referring to the climate scientist skeptics, probably most agree with the two statements, but disagree that it's worthwhile doing anything about it.

If you look at most popular press skeptics, they seem to range from "it's a fraud and conspiracy" to "it's incompetent", both of which leading to "there is no global warming". But that's a guess based on what I've bothered reading.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 28, 2014 09:30PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-28 22:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Well I do think it's what he stated. But I really don't know what most climate skeptics think. If you are referring to the climate scientist skeptics, probably most agree with the two statements, but disagree that it's worthwhile doing anything about it.

If you look at most popular press skeptics, they seem to range from "it's a fraud and conspiracy" to "it's incompetent", both of which leading to "there is no global warming". But that's a guess based on what I've bothered reading.
[/quote]

Bob said, "Technically correct. Only the vast majority agree." (on global warming)

You said, "The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that a) the earth is in a warming period, and b)that some of the warming is due to human activity. It's a fact."

You really find those statements identical?

The argument is not about whether we have been in a warming period or that 'some' of the warming is due to human activity. (Which is what most scientists agree on.) It's about the alarmist claims by 'some' scientists and the press that Bob would insist are also the things that the vast majority of scientists agree on.

Like, AGW is mostly caused by humans and will have catastrophic consequences for humans if it continues unchecked.
That AGW is causing the oceans to rise at alarming rates and will cause displacement of vast numbers of people living on islands.
That AGW is causing more frequent and extreme weather conditions to include hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.
That we are nearing a tipping point where we will have waited too long to be able to change the above mentioned consequences.

I'm pretty sure that Bob would insist that the vast majority of scientists agree with those points also.

So, let me ask you, do you believe that the vast majority of scientists agree on those points?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 28, 2014 09:51PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 19:06, mastermindreader wrote:
...

The fact that the average age of Fox viewers is 68 only indicates that things will keep progressing in the same direction.
[/quote]

I think you meant the median age, not the average age.


Also, it's kinda funny that even with the median age skewing older for Fox viewers, Fox STILL has nearly twice as many viewers at the 25-54 demo than either CNN or MSNBC. Yeah, they're really hurtin.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 28, 2014 10:01PM)
Don't forget that FOX is available FREE in all cable packages- not the case with MSNBC. Also note that the cable news audience is VERY small. CBS Evening News dwarfs the ratings of FOX and every other cable news outlet put together.

You might want to read this: http://money.msn.com/now/post--fox-news-aging-audience-could-be-a-big-problem
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 28, 2014 11:17PM)
Yes CBS is renowned for non liberal bias.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Jan 28, 2014 11:43PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 00:47, Peter McMillan wrote:
Today the United States government is an Oligarchy who has taken power unto itself not provided for in the Constitution. There for, private property is no longer a reality today, nor has it been for quite some time.
[/quote]

I would like to respectfully point out that in the quoted text above you are referring to the Federal Government, and none of what you list in the quoted text below is being done by the Federal Government.

[quote]
The test for this is simple. Do not pay your assessed tax on the dwelling YOU put the down payment on, YOU pay the insurance on, YOU pay the mortgage on as well as the maintenance and up keep. In short order the True Owner will come and displace you for not paying what THEY determine you must. In addition, every BOND scheme that gets passed puts your property up for collateral for the government, if you agree to the project or not. This is not explained to voters before the vote. They are told just enough to provoke their emotions.
[/quote]

I share your view that government is bloated, inefficient and not very responsive to the people. However, if someone trespasses onto your land you have the ability to call someone and have your property rights enforced. Public roads allow you to access your land. Public services will arrive and put out your house if it's on fire. These services have to be paid for somehow. I don't necessarily agree that property taxation negates the concept of private property ownership.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 29, 2014 12:14AM)
Property taxes are about as old as the country..
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 29, 2014 12:26AM)
Ever live in a rural area where response time may not be immediate?
Message: Posted by: Bazinga (Jan 29, 2014 12:43AM)
Wait.
WAIT.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!


Critter... There's cake?


Bazinga!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2014 01:09AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 01:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Property taxes are about as old as the country..
[/quote]

Older, in fact. We've had them here since colonial times.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2014 01:44AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 01:43, Bazinga wrote:
Wait.
WAIT.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!


Critter... There's cake?


Bazinga!
[/quote]

Found some with salted caramel frosting.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 29, 2014 06:44AM)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Guess what number that Article is?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2014 06:52AM)
72?

Rather that use the term “New World Order” they use a the code word “Global”. Global Climate Change = New World Order Climate Change. Carbon Tax is Global. Carbon Tax = The New World Order Tax. Welcome to layer cake.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 29, 2014 08:24AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-28 23:01, mastermindreader wrote:
Don't forget that FOX is available FREE in all cable packages- not the case with MSNBC. Also note that the cable news audience is VERY small. CBS Evening News dwarfs the ratings of FOX and every other cable news outlet put together.

You might want to read this: http://money.msn.com/now/post--fox-news-aging-audience-could-be-a-big-problem


[/quote]

MSNBC is not free because they NEED the money whereas FOX doesn't. Don't know where you are getting your facts but FOX sweeps top rated news station- here is the article to prove it: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/01/28/fox-news-marks-a-one-year-sweep-of-top-cable-news-programs-in-total-viewers/232809/

Here is another showing FOX #1 OVER MSNBC http://www.mediaite.com/tv/q3-2013-cable-news-ratings-fox-1-overall-msnbc-2-in-primetime-cnn-2-in-total-day/

RNK
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 29, 2014 08:32AM)
Another link for you talking about that goof ball Rachel Maddow and her sinking numbers! http://www.ibtimes.com/cable-news-ratings-rachel-maddow-sinks-msnbc-cnn-rebounds-fox-news-still-untouchable-1333745

Another article: http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/fox-news-remains-ratings-dynamo-as-2013-comes-to-close-1200964903/ telling how FOX comes in #1 at end of 2013 over the COMBINED ratings of CNN and MSNBC

Sorry Bob- FOX beats them ALL!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2014 09:15AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lpGP50CSBw
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 29, 2014 09:19AM)
Fox does very well as a TV network in large part not due to any qualitative difference, but because it's the only conservative major network, while viewers who prefer a liberal slant have a number of networks to choose from.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 29, 2014 09:22AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 10:15, tommy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lpGP50CSBw
[/quote]

LOL! Great example..... Of course her actions (though lunatic enough) will be blamed on the other party. They never take responsibility for anything- always play the blame game.

RNK
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2014 09:27AM)
Media means middle and so the Media is the Middle Man. As far as Left and Right go, what they are selling is division for the Man. As they say: Divide and Conquer. It's altogether Punch & Judy.

In the meantime, while you all quibble, the Big eye dia moves on, left right and centre, here there and everywhere.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uTTR9WzXcw

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." Club of Rome
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 29, 2014 09:49AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 10:19, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Fox does very well as a TV network in large part not due to any qualitative difference, but because it's the only conservative major network, while viewers who prefer a liberal slant have a number of networks to choose from.
[/quote]

Again- you must have missed the article about FOX still #1 over the COMBINED ratings of CNN and MSNBC. When talking paid cable news stations- what other liberal top PAID cable news stations are there? Also- the Blaze has entered the picture for conservatives to watch. So your theory is just that- a theory and not true.

wow. even when it's black and white the left still can't see the truth...
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2014 10:18AM)
And even when it's black and white, you still don't get the point.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 29, 2014 10:18AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 10:49, RNK wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 10:19, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Fox does very well as a TV network in large part not due to any qualitative difference, but because it's the only conservative major network, while viewers who prefer a liberal slant have a number of networks to choose from.
[/quote]

Again- you must have missed the article about FOX still #1 over the COMBINED ratings of CNN and MSNBC. When talking paid cable news stations- what other liberal top PAID cable news stations are there? Also- the Blaze has entered the picture for conservatives to watch. So your theory is just that- a theory and not true.

wow. even when it's black and white the left still can't see the truth...
[/quote]

First, I'm not a liberal, so your last statement demonstrates any of a number of negative qualities - intellectual laziness, or arrogance or poor logic to believe that someone who disagrees with you on this point must be from "the left."

Second, your distinction between paid and free stations is irrelevant to my point, because I was referring to the options available to someone who wants to watch a station with a liberal slant; those people aren't restricted to MSNBC or CNN; they can watch free networks, too, as major free networks also provide a liberal slant. Fox has no major national competitor in the arena of conservatively slanted news and commentary; MSNBC and CNN have more than each other, a.d whether those stations are free or not has no bearing on that claim.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2014 10:18AM)
This directionality thing appears to be somewhat perspective based.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Jan 29, 2014 01:12PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 11:18, mastermindreader wrote:
And even when it's black and white, you still don't get the point.
[/quote]

The point that Fox is rated #1 even with CNN and MCNBC combined ratings? Not to hard to grasp. Maybe it is for you to stomach the fact that Fox IS #1.

RNK
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2014 01:41PM)
Among cable news stations. It is provided on basic cable. MSNBC is not. And, as has been pointed out, it is the only right wing cable "news" station. Liberals and moderates have MANY stations to choose from, hence their individual ratings are lower.

And, as has been repeatedly been pointed out, it's ratings are rendered insignificant when compared to ANY network news program.
Message: Posted by: Fred E. Bert (Jan 29, 2014 02:42PM)
Fox News is #1 at one thing, that's for sure.

But it won't be #1 in viewership for long at the rate that it's losing viewers in the 25-54 year old demographic.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2014 03:18PM)
[quote]There is both good and bad news for Fox News after the the ratings for the full year of 2013 were revealed. The good news is that Fox is still the leader among the cable news networks. The bad news is that their ratings are dropping, especially among the critical age demographic of 25 to 54 year olds (the demographic most sought by advertisers) -- and unless they can somehow turn that around, they will wind up on the bottom of the heap (both in advertising dollars and viewership).

According to the website TVNEWSER, Fox has 1,761,000 viewers for all day, and 1,097,000 in primetime. But only a very small part of those viewers are in the 25 to 54 age group -- 16.69% for all day and 20.23% for primetime. That means that 83.31% of all day viewers and 79.77% of primetime viewers are not in that prime demographic -- and almost all of them are over 54 years old. In fact, the average age of a Fox News viewer is now 65 years old.

Those are very bad numbers for Fox News, and predict a bleak future for the network. As their old viewers die off, there are not sufficient numbers of young viewers to replace them -- which means the ratings will continue to drop (until their numbers are even worse than CNN's). And the numbers in the 25 to 54 age bracket keep falling for Fox (indicating that their efforts to stop the bleeding are not working).[/quote]

http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2014/01/fox-news-still-losing-critical-25-54.html

[quote]
...January 2013 marked the worst ratings Fox News has received in more than ten years. The 25-54 demographic (one of the most desired segments of the viewing audience) dropped by 22%, the lowest numbers since August of 2001. Total viewership dipped 6%, which doesn’t sound too bad until you remember that Fox has monopolized the cable news world for the past 12 years.

The other cable news networks have been benefitting from Fox’s sudden drop in popularity. MSNBC rose 11% in January, and Rachel Maddow’s show leapt from 14th most watched to 10th, usurping the repeat airing of The O’Reilly Factor. Maddow’s show was a particular triumph for MSNBC — not only did it outperform Billy O’Reilly’s incredibly successful program, it managed to rise a shocking 32% in the 25-54 demographic. Not too shabby for a network that has frequently been the brunt of Fox’s jokes. Meanwhile O’Reilly’s program dropped 22% in the same demo.

- See more at: http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/fox-news-worst-ratings#sthash.ibir4QpD.dpuf
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2014 03:27PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-28 22:51, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 19:06, mastermindreader wrote:
...

The fact that the average age of Fox viewers is 68 only indicates that things will keep progressing in the same direction.
[/quote]

I think you meant the median age, not the average age.


Also, it's kinda funny that even with the median age skewing older for Fox viewers, Fox STILL has nearly twice as many viewers at the 25-54 demo than either CNN or MSNBC. Yeah, they're really hurtin.
[/quote]

Not so. They've dropped dramatically in that demographic. See my previous post.

But you're right. 68 IS the median age of FOX viewers. The average age is younger- 65.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Jan 29, 2014 03:53PM)
"My news channel has better ratings then your news channel" is to journalism what "Justin Beiber is a better musician than the first chair violinist of the London Philharmonic" is to music.

Please don't tell me we're applying Worthington's Law to everything now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbU4VRs2rro
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 29, 2014 04:12PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 16:53, longhaired1 wrote:
"My news channel has better ratings then your news channel" is to journalism what "Justin Beiber is a better musician than the first chair violinist of the London Philharmonic" is to music.

[/quote]

lol Nice one.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 29, 2014 05:02PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 10:19, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Fox does very well as a TV network in large part not due to any qualitative difference, but because it's the only conservative major network, while viewers who prefer a liberal slant have a number of networks to choose from.
[/quote]

Since this blew past everyone but me let me try to say it and take credit as if it were an original thought LOL.

What is being put forth here is that since FOX has ONE station to turn to for their particular slant, it will have ALL THE VIEWERS WITH THAT SLANT looking at it.

Stations with the other slant, be they free TV or cable access or what not have many other outlets to choose to hear your particular preacher preach to your particular choir.

This means FOX has an easier chance at capturing viewership of their particular choir than the others who compete among their own congregation for viewership of the choir.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 29, 2014 05:17PM)
See? We agree on this, too, Danny.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (Jan 29, 2014 05:24PM)
Lowest ratings since Clinton with last night's Small Ball Speech. FOX doubles both CNN/MSNBC combined in viewership. FOX wins the much coveted younger demo with over half a million more viewers.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/fox-news-dominates-cable-ratings-for-state-of-the-union-address-1201076396/
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 29, 2014 05:49PM)
The liberals run the country but at least conservatives have better TV ratings is the point I guess?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jan 29, 2014 06:02PM)
Murder She Wrote had great ratings when it was cancelled. Just the wrong type of ratings: too old. Advertisers didn't want to reach the most people. They wanted to reach the most people of the people they wanted to reach: 18-34 year olds. Seems every day you read another article on the future demise of Fox News as a result of an aging viewship.
Message: Posted by: Bazinga (Jan 29, 2014 06:04PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 16:53, longhaired1 wrote:
"My news channel has better ratings then your news channel"[/quote]
http://youtu.be/5E9H_DvwOVc?t=8s
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 29, 2014 07:40PM)
Murder she wrote. I always loved/hated that show. Loved for the unintentional humor that is.

I mean here is a sleepy New England town and every week there is a murder. Had to be a more dangerous place than Detroit. So don't worry the woman who writes fiction is here to save the day.

So now so many are dead or in jail for murder she had to go on a book tour. Every place she goes you guessed it another murder! At what point does the city just not let her in?

I had a perfect ending for the show. Should have been that Jessica Fletcher was a serial killer and had framed all those other people for murder!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 29, 2014 08:32PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 11:18, critter wrote:
This directionality thing appears to be somewhat perspective based.
[/quote]

Undoubtedly.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2014 09:00PM)
http://climateradio.org/
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 29, 2014 11:15PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-29 16:27, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-28 22:51, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-27 19:06, mastermindreader wrote:
...

The fact that the average age of Fox viewers is 68 only indicates that things will keep progressing in the same direction.
[/quote]

I think you meant the median age, not the average age.


Also, it's kinda funny that even with the median age skewing older for Fox viewers, Fox STILL has nearly twice as many viewers at the 25-54 demo than either CNN or MSNBC. Yeah, they're really hurtin.
[/quote]

Not so. They've dropped dramatically in that demographic. See my previous post.

But you're right. 68 IS the median age of FOX viewers. The average age is younger- 65.
[/quote]

Yes. so. Your article didn't provide any numbers, just percentages. Look here instead.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/01/fox-news-tops-ratings-race-cnn-slides-in-primetime-180451.html

Fox 222,000 in the 25-54 year old demo
MSNBC 131,000 in the 25-54 year old demo
CNN 131,000 in the 25-54 year old demo

Like I said, Fox is nearly twice the number of viewers than MSNBC and CNN in the demo.

As to Lobo's point that Fox has higher ratings because it's the only place for conservatives to go. I think that's an interesting theory but not necessarily true.

If you look here:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/

you'll see that Fox has a good diversity of Republican, Independent, and Democrat viewers. In fact, more balanced than either CNN or MSNBC.

Fox News
40% Republican
33% Independent
22% Democrat
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2014 11:19PM)
I used to listen to Fox News radio every morning. Couldn't rightly criticize them if I didn't know what they'd said. Now almost all I do is homework. Do people still watch TV?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 29, 2014 11:32PM)
The general media has neither a liberal or conservative bias. It has a corporatist bias, because it is owned by corporations.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 29, 2014 11:38PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 00:32, EsnRedshirt wrote:
The general media has neither a liberal or conservative bias. It has a corporatist bias, because it is owned by corporations.
[/quote]

The conclusions may be true, but they don't follow necessarily from the premise.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 29, 2014 11:44PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 00:15, rockwall wrote:
As to Lobo's point that Fox has higher ratings because it's the only place for conservatives to go. I think that's an interesting theory but not necessarily true.

If you look here:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/

you'll see that Fox has a good diversity of Republican, Independent, and Democrat viewers. In fact, more balanced than either CNN or MSNBC.

Fox News
40% Republican
33% Independent
22% Democrat


[/quote]

Actually, I didn't say that it was the only place for conservatives to go, but that it was the only place (among major national networks) to go for conservatively slanted new and commentary. As an independent, I frequently check out Fox as well as liberal outlets; when it comes to liberal outlets, my vote is split. When I want to see what the conservatives think, it's pretty much always Fox. See also Critter's post above for an example of a (former) non-conservative consumer of conservative news and commentary.

I'm not saying that this is the sole reason for Fox's ratings, but if think it's a very big one (the biggest single reason, I suspect).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 30, 2014 12:56AM)
The figure for Democrats is misleading. You forget that many of us watch FOX just for the laughs and also to see what phony conspiracies and scandals the right is currently peddling. :eek:

But I can guarantee you that the vast majority of Democrats who watch FOX don't use it as a primary news source.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jan 30, 2014 04:49AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 01:56, mastermindreader wrote:
The figure for Democrats is misleading. You forget that many of us watch FOX just for the laughs and also to see what phony conspiracies and scandals the right is currently peddling. :eek:

But I can guarantee you that the vast majority of Democrats who watch FOX don't use it as a primary news source.
[/quote]

Right. I listen to Limbaugh and right-wing radio quite a bit (actually, exclusively), but not because I'm sympathetic to their message. Anyway, a better indication of where the country leans should be evident by the results of the last 2 elections, and not by any TV/radio ratings.

Ron
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 30, 2014 06:41AM)
As my pipes are frozen in my house, I can't stop thinking when is global warming going to happen?

It's below zero and broke all records.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 30, 2014 06:58AM)
In the summer time when the weather is fine.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 30, 2014 07:04AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 07:41, Dennis Michael wrote:
As my pipes are frozen in my house, I can't stop thinking when is global warming going to happen?

It's below zero and broke all records.
[/quote]

This tired meme comes up every time it snows or gets cold outside.

How many times does it have to be repeated that local weather events are not the same thing as global climate change? You are aware, right, that in the southern hemisphere many locations are having record heat?

The fact is that the average GLOBAL temperature is rising as a result of AGW.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 30, 2014 07:08AM)
Yes. Global warming means whatever the proponents say it does.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Jan 30, 2014 07:42AM)
But what we do within the U.S. borders is the cause for all of it! We're to blame!
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 30, 2014 07:43AM)
Oh, something I can help with! We love operational definitions in science! :D

[quote]
Climate change is any substantial change in Earth’s climate that lasts for an extended period of time. Global warming refers to climate change that causes an increase in the [i]average[/i] temperature of the lower atmosphere.
[/quote]

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/background/globalwarming/definition.html
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 30, 2014 07:50AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 08:08, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yes. Global warming means whatever the proponents say it does.
[/quote]

No. It simply refers to the gradual rise in the average global temperature. (That's why the word "global" is in there.)

And Glenn, that applies to your comment as well. GLOBAL does not refer just to what happens in the US, nor does the AGW model state that the US is primarily responsible.
(All industrialized countries contribute to the problem through their carbon emissions.)

So please stop making stuff up.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 30, 2014 07:56AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 08:08, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yes. Global warming means whatever the proponents say it does.
[/quote]

Not to scientists. You can read the definitions right in the papers, including the IPCC reports.

For a bunch of guys bashing egos on the internet, however, it a matter of picking your favorite team and cheering as the goalposts continually move. Rather like evolution. For the real players (scientists) the rules are clear. For the egos online or behind pulpits, you never get tied down to consistency.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 30, 2014 08:18AM)
The scientists have not only ego in it but each side has money on the line. HUGE money. Don't play like science is still as pure as the wind driven snow.

The "scientists" (I put that in quotes to denote those on each side with an agenda, as opposed to the actual scientists who have been shouted down by the noise machines on each side.I do not claim ALL scientists do this or either side does it more.) make sure their grants keep expanding every year. Those who get money from interested groups who want to prove it is all man made lets change and those who take money from the groups who want to shout it is a hoax.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Of course we affect our environment. It would be impossible not to. How badly, to what extent, is it bad or is it good and can our behavior change it are the real questions.

The important one is can we change it with our behavior. I think that we have proven on a level that we absolutely can to an extent. Pollution is a good example. Littering is an example. So on that scale we have proven we have an impact, we have proven it is bad, and we have proven through a change in behavior it can help. I think this is undeniable.

Scale it up and that is where you get problems. There is no money to be made from don't litter campaigns. There is where I start to diverge. Somehow the solution from the proponents is always to tax the heck out of someone. The solution always seems to be redistribution. This is where I get off the train. Even the idea of taking the temperature of the earth is pretty stupid.

I don't think the argument is if it does or does not happen. It is how to do something. Why spend energy arguing about something and proving this or that, and then helping the evidence. That is the problem. When the proponents get caught helping or fudging even if they are right it looks bad and sets them back. Then they make up idiotic excuses for it and justify the behavior. JUST ONCE someone needs to walk away from the fools and the extremes in the movement who are happy to cause economic calamity in order to get their agenda pushed.

If ANYTHING is going to be done on ANY level the proponents need to start to eject the extremists from the movement. Otherwise the other side will simply constantly point to them and cause a standstill. But since in decades nobody has done it I find it hard to believe that the entire movement does not agree with the extremes. Since nobody says "hey we don't think that" and happily keeps quoting them and just letting them ramble on how could anyone not think that is the way everyone feels?

Well I am telling you that as long as those extremists have a voice, and a loud voice not countered by anyone in the movement, you will see people on the other side (MANY motivated by only money.) use them to paint EVERYONE with that brush. And I might add quite successfully.

I have given you the way forward. You care so much, stop fighting with the other side. Start to prune your own movement so it is more presentable and so it can actually be heard. The problem might not be with the message, but the way it is being heralded. Oh and drop all the doomsday doom and gloom nonsense for me while you are at it. Once you pass the first 10 or 15 end of the earth scenarios it is the boy who cried wolf.

Unless of course it is all about the ideology and argument. In which case continue.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 30, 2014 08:29AM)
[quote]This tired meme comes up every time it snows or gets cold outside. [/quote]

I welcome warmer weather. 365 days a year. Aruba....Here I come, again....
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 30, 2014 08:39AM)
The Great Deception which could derail the The Great Deception.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/16/epa-climate-change-expert-cia-fraud
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 30, 2014 08:46AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 08:43, critter wrote:
Oh, something I can help with! We love operational definitions in science! :D

[quote]
Climate change is any substantial change in Earth’s climate that lasts for an extended period of time. Global warming refers to climate change that causes an increase in the [i]average[/i] temperature of the lower atmosphere.
[/quote]

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/background/globalwarming/definition.html
[/quote]
"Substantial" and "extended period in time" sound awfully vague.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Jan 30, 2014 08:47AM)
If we are not the sole cause then we should not bear the entire burden. However there is still no conclusive link between carbon emissions and temperature rise. The 12-15 current year flatlining of global temperatures despite continued rise in carbon emissions does not follow that premise, Bob.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 30, 2014 08:58AM)
The whole warmers scam from top to bottom is rife with criminals.

Billions lost in Europe carbon trading fraud

The integrity of the European Union’s embattled Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) was rocked by revelations in December that carbon-trading tax fraud has cost European taxpayers more than €5 billion.

http://climatechangesocialchange.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/billions-lost-in-europe-carbon-trading-fraud/
Message: Posted by: Peter McMillan (Jan 30, 2014 11:33AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 08:50, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 08:08, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yes. Global warming means whatever the proponents say it does.
[/quote]

No. It simply refers to the gradual rise in the average global temperature. (That's why the word "global" is in there.)

And Glenn, that applies to your comment as well. GLOBAL does not refer just to what happens in the US, nor does the AGW model state that the US is primarily responsible.
(All industrialized countries contribute to the problem through their carbon emissions.)

So please stop making stuff up.
[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent advice, you should heed it as well.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 30, 2014 12:00PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 09:46, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 08:43, critter wrote:
Oh, something I can help with! We love operational definitions in science! :D

[quote]
Climate change is any substantial change in Earth’s climate that lasts for an extended period of time. Global warming refers to climate change that causes an increase in the [i]average[/i] temperature of the lower atmosphere.
[/quote]

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/background/globalwarming/definition.html
[/quote]
"Substantial" and "extended period in time" sound awfully vague.
[/quote]

There are several more paragraphs in the link. I'm sure each study defines its own paradigms and/or uses standardized models to derive them. For the purposes of conversation I felt that this was a sufficient definition.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jan 30, 2014 01:48PM)
I haven't read this entire thread but has anyone brought up the immediate here and now costs of Global Climate change? I'm talking about the fact that places like Atlanta and Alabama are going to have to start investing heavily in winter preparedness equipment: plows, salt, salt trucks, that kind of thing. It is going to be interesting as local governments have to now find budget to keep their cities from shutting down in a snow storm when they never had to pay for those costs in the past.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 30, 2014 03:18PM)
And that is the fault of mankind?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 30, 2014 03:19PM)
Inquiring Minds Want to Know … Why Is It So Cold? (Includes video.)

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/01/inquiring-minds-want-to-know-why-is-it-so-cold/

[Apologies if someone posted this already.]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 30, 2014 03:31PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 14:48, Slide wrote:
I haven't read this entire thread but has anyone brought up the immediate here and now costs of Global Climate change? I'm talking about the fact that places like Atlanta and Alabama are going to have to start investing heavily in winter preparedness equipment: plows, salt, salt trucks, that kind of thing. It is going to be interesting as local governments have to now find budget to keep their cities from shutting down in a snow storm when they never had to pay for those costs in the past.
[/quote]

[quote]
On 2014-01-30 08:04, mastermindreader wrote:
This tired meme comes up every time it snows or gets cold outside.

How many times does it have to be repeated that local weather events are not the same thing as global climate change
[/quote]


I just wanted to point this out to Bob who thinks it's only those on the other side who like to blame local weather events on climate change.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jan 30, 2014 03:31PM)
Great video. Thanks.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 30, 2014 03:54PM)
Falsifiability

Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html


You have no science. What you have is a NON-FALSIABLE Delphi Oracle Prophesy.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 30, 2014 04:02PM)
Rockwall- The frequency of extreme weather events and anomalies are expected results of global warming, though no particular event can be considered in isolation.

If the model holds true, and the vast majority of climate scientists believe it will, Slide is quite correct.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 30, 2014 04:14PM)
How can your NON-FALSIABLE Oracle Prophesy not hold true?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 30, 2014 06:11PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 17:02, mastermindreader wrote:
Rockwall- The frequency of extreme weather events and anomalies are expected results of global warming, though no particular event can be considered in isolation.

If the model holds true, and the vast majority of climate scientists believe it will, Slide is quite correct.
[/quote]

Now, how did I know that in THIS case, you would defend someone blaming local weather events on AGW?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 30, 2014 06:51PM)
How did I know? Oh yeah! Because I predicted it!

[quote]
On 2014-01-19 20:31, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 20:15, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 13:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Citing the current temperature in a given place as "proof" of anything is almost exclusively done by AGW deniers.
[/quote]

No, it's not. I've heard the counter-examples, even if you haven't.
[/quote]

And many right here on NVMS. Of course, when someone here claims how it proves AGW, Bob usually replies that it's because they obviously understand the science.

Anytime there is ANY type of unusual weather event, you can find news stories talking about how this is all because of climate change.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 30, 2014 06:54PM)
Extreme weather such as hurricanes usually [i]is[/i] caused by global factors. That's how they predict them. Least that's what I picked up from the Weather Channel.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 30, 2014 07:07PM)
But is it mankind's fault?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 30, 2014 07:09PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 20:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
But is it mankind's fault?
[/quote]

Badly framed question. Are humans morally responsible to clean up their mess?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 30, 2014 07:10PM)
Wind is air in motion. It is produced by the uneven heating of the earth’s surface by the sun.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 30, 2014 09:03PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 20:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 20:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
But is it mankind's fault?
[/quote]

Badly framed question. Are humans morally responsible to clean up their mess?
[/quote]

I believe so. Now we need to figure out exactly what is our mess. No matter the cost IF IT IS INDEED ours we are or should be obligated to clean it up.

Now the next question since you bring up morality is it moral to use the environment as a way to redistribute wealth? Is it moral to use scare tactics to pass regulations that are simply part of an ideology. Once you bring in morals it gets murky fairly quick.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Jan 30, 2014 09:14PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 08:04, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 07:41, Dennis Michael wrote:
As my pipes are frozen in my house, I can't stop thinking when is global warming going to happen?

It's below zero and broke all records.
[/quote]

This tired meme comes up every time it snows or gets cold outside.

[/quote]

Indeed. The tired meme of "there is a war on Christmas" is always soon followed by "it's cold in the winter so global warming is a hoax".

My favorite one though is "there is huge money in the global warming hoax". No... there may be some money, but the huge money is on the other side of the argument.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 30, 2014 09:15PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 22:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 20:09, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 20:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
But is it mankind's fault?
[/quote]

Badly framed question. Are humans morally responsible to clean up their mess?
[/quote]

I believe so. Now we need to figure out exactly what is our mess. No matter the cost IF IT IS INDEED ours we are or should be obligated to clean it up.

Now the next question since you bring up morality is it moral to use the environment as a way to redistribute wealth? Is it moral to use scare tactics to pass regulations that are simply part of an ideology. Once you bring in morals it gets murky fairly quick.
[/quote]

But at least we know where the action is. Instead of squabbling over the science, let's start holding governments and corporations to task.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Jan 30, 2014 09:21PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 22:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
Now the next question since you bring up morality is it moral to use the environment as a way to redistribute wealth? Is it moral to use scare tactics to pass regulations that are simply part of an ideology. Once you bring in morals it gets murky fairly quick.
[/quote]
I've spend time with quite a few very passionate environmental activists and not one of them has ever taken me aside and said "we don't really care about the environment. This is just a cover to promote our leftist agenda".

Perhaps I have not infiltrated them effectively enough to be let in on their little secret.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 30, 2014 09:24PM)
Back in March 2000:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.


Indeed. So now what are believers saying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c71RCAyLS1M
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Jan 30, 2014 09:37PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 22:24, tommy wrote:
Back in March 2000:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

[/quote]

In 1994 Rush Limbaugh declared, "There is no global warming going on," .. rather emphatically I may add. I used to listen to his show regularly back then. The deniers have since started adding "manmade" to the term. A rather interesting shift to go from "it's absolutely not happening" to "okay, it's happening but it's not our fault". Now Rush is not a scientist (other than an amateur pharmacologist), but he does shape public opinion for quite a few of his listeners. One wonders if he was simply misinformed in the early days or... what's the word I'm looking for..lying.

Nah. That couldn't be.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 30, 2014 09:50PM)
There is no significant global warming going on at all. All we have is a fraction of 1 one degree since 1880, when Sitting Bull was on the war path. As for who added man to it and war for that matter, try the Rockefeller Club of Rome 1968

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

Anyhow what about this?

"The most scientifically interesting, and societally relevant topic in climate change is the possibility of abrupt climate change, with genuinely massive societal consequences (the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and regional forest diebacks arguably don’t qualify here). The IPCC has high confidence that we don’t have to worry about any of the genuinely dangerous scenarios (e.g. ice sheet collapse, AMOC collapse) on timescales of a century. These collapses have happened in the past, without AGW, and they will inevitably happen sometime in the future, with or without AGW. Are the IPCC overconfident in their conclusions on these also?"

http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/judith-curry-says-its-okay/
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Jan 30, 2014 10:17PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 22:50, tommy wrote:
There is no significant global warming going on at all. All we have is a fraction of 1 one degree since 1880, when Sitting Bull was on the war path. [/quote]

So you're suggesting that Sitting Bull caused the problem. I'll give you that one.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 30, 2014 10:46PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 22:24, tommy wrote:
Back in March 2000:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.


Indeed. So now what are believers saying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c71RCAyLS1M
[/quote]

Keep your falsifiable hypotheses to yourself, buddy!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 30, 2014 10:52PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 22:14, longhaired1 wrote:
...

My favorite one though is "there is huge money in the global warming hoax". No... there may be some money, but the huge money is on the other side of the argument.
[/quote]

Not even a tiny bit close. Millions are donated to skeptical researchers while BILLIONS are paid out to support AGW research and projects.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490

"And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely"

"Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science."
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 30, 2014 11:00PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 22:24, tommy wrote:
Back in March 2000:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.


Indeed. So now what are believers saying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c71RCAyLS1M
[/quote]

Thanks for that Tommy. I'm glad to see someone else playing the game I started several pages back.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Jan 30, 2014 11:05PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 23:52, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-30 22:14, longhaired1 wrote:
...

My favorite one though is "there is huge money in the global warming hoax". No... there may be some money, but the huge money is on the other side of the argument.
[/quote]

Not even a tiny bit close. Millions are donated to skeptical researchers while BILLIONS are paid out to support AGW research and projects.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490

[/quote]

Perhaps I should clarify. I wasn't referring to the amount of money being spent on climate science on either side of the equation. I was referring to the amount of money that is made by the industries that pollute, who have a vested interest in doing business in as unregulated an environment as possible.

To those who use "follow the money" as their chief argument against environmentalism in general, in the words of the great philosopher M Python, I faht in their general direction.

I'm pro business, pro market, and still believe we should reduce the amount of crap that we dump into the fishbowl we're living in. I enjoy vacationing in Mexico but also enjoy returning to this repressive totalitarian country I live in where the air smells a heck of a lot better, thanks to the *** commies who have destroyed the place.

And I don't think the Koch Brothers really care about "freedom" as much as they claim to.

But I may be wrong.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 30, 2014 11:44PM)
They do care about their own unrestricted and unregulated "freedom" to do whatever is necessary to increase their bottom line.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 31, 2014 08:10AM)
Yes name call and demonize the other side while complaining if it is ever done to you.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 31, 2014 08:40AM)
Where's the name calling or complaining, Danny? Project much?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 31, 2014 08:55AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-31 00:44, mastermindreader wrote:
They do care about their own unrestricted and unregulated "freedom" to do whatever is necessary to increase their bottom line.
[/quote]

Blind much?

This is you making unsubstantiated claims about how all they care about is unrestricted and unregulated "freedom". Saying they do whatever is necessary to increase the bottom line. All that is Bob is name calling! You even put freedom in quotes to further your sarcasm.

If someone does this to you they are accused of name calling and having no argument. But weather is not climate until it proves your point, don't attack a source unless it is right wing and no name calling unless Bob approves.

All this is stuff where most people not ideologically blinkered step back and say "wow that does seem odd". Not you I bet. I am guessing a series of excuses are on the horizon.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 31, 2014 10:12AM)
The believers make the mistake of believing that them who do not have the gold make the rules.

Know that them who have the gold are the Rocker fellows and it is they who are making the rules of climate change and these rules will benefit them who have the gold and not we the people who do not have the gold.

International Arbitration by those who have the gold will deprive governments around the world of any power they have left by contract. Climate Governance in the Rocker fellows Developing World eh.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 31, 2014 10:45AM)
If global warming was a major concern, wouldn't we do away with the nuclear arsenal?

Global Warming is secondary to blowing us up, which would seem more likely.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 31, 2014 11:18AM)
Well we either way we will see the light. :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 31, 2014 11:40AM)
[quote]is it moral to use the environment as a way to redistribute wealth? [/quote]
A great question, since pretty much the entire history of capitalism and imperialism has been about the use of the environment to redistribute wealth. See The Enclosure Acts for Chapter One.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 31, 2014 11:43AM)
What never enters the believers imagination at all is that their authorities are idiots and liars.

Let us look into the question of if the so called science of climatology itself, is or is not idiotic.

It seems to me, that anyone who tries to measure the atmosphere, rather than that which is on the ground, is an idiot.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jan 31, 2014 11:47AM)
"is it moral to use the environment as a way to redistribute wealth?"

Is it moral that 81 people control 1/2 the world's wealth?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 31, 2014 12:01PM)
It seems to me, when one tries to measure the atmosphere, it measures one thing one minute and the next minute one measures it, it has changed! Thus we have thousands of idiotic climatologists, constantly running around the planet, with their climate rulers, trying to measure the ever changing bits of the atmosphere and giving us wild and ever changing prophesies that are neither here nor there.

http://www.totalmerchandise.co.uk/uploads/product-images/Bendy_Rulers_Green.jpg
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 31, 2014 12:30PM)
I notice how nobody actually answers the questions but wants to qualify them with a false dilemma.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 31, 2014 12:40PM)
Is it moral to destroy the environment to increase the wealth of a few at the expense of our children and grandchildren?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 31, 2014 12:46PM)
Again nice dodge.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Jan 31, 2014 03:23PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-31 13:40, mastermindreader wrote:
Is it moral to destroy the environment to increase the wealth of a few at the expense of our children and grandchildren?
[/quote]

Ask the politicians, it appears that's what going on now.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 31, 2014 03:40PM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-31 13:40, mastermindreader wrote:
Is it moral to destroy the environment to increase the wealth of a few at the expense of our children and grandchildren?
[/quote]

Yea the grandchildren line is funny from spending addicts. Thanks for the laugh.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 31, 2014 05:06PM)
Is it moral to give our children and grandchildren nightmares?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzSuP_TMFtk
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 1, 2014 12:49AM)
[quote]
On 2014-01-31 12:47, Slide wrote:
"is it moral to use the environment as a way to redistribute wealth?"

Is it moral that 81 people control 1/2 the world's wealth?


[/quote]

Depends on who you ask. If one of the 81 people you will probably get a yes answer. But if one of the other people not included in the 81 depending on how far down you go in wealth you will probably get a different answer...maybe. :)
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 1, 2014 07:58AM)
So you are saying that morality is based on the individuals view of morality. So if you ask a hit man if it is moral to kill innocent people, and they say yes, than it's moral.
Some have different views. For me, murder is immoral no matter who says it is moral. 81 people controlling the world's wealth is immoral no matter who thinks it isn't.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Feb 1, 2014 08:03AM)
Darn, and I was working to make it 82.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 1, 2014 08:58AM)
The world is lead by leaders and leadership is a complex subject, which has it's experts. That which call science is not based on based on a show of hands but we have show hands in this consensus idea. That is a leadership concept. So long as you can get the illusion of consensus one can has the authority to demand how things are done. In this game one can prove the idea false but majority rules and can ignore him. It is moral to science. The children are being told if 98% of the authorities say 2 + 2 = 5 then that is the truth. If someone puts their hand up and says hang on that wrong! Then the comrades take him out behind the chemical sheds and shot him. So you must go along with 98% because they the authority. When I am king I am taking that 98% out behind the chemical sheds as it happens.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 1, 2014 11:00AM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-01 08:58, Slide wrote:
So you are saying that morality is based on the individuals view of morality. So if you ask a hit man if it is moral to kill innocent people, and they say yes, than it's moral.
Some have different views. For me, murder is immoral no matter who says it is moral. 81 people controlling the world's wealth is immoral no matter who thinks it isn't.
[/quote]

What's the number where it becomes inherently immoral?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 1, 2014 11:13AM)
98
Message: Posted by: Slide (Feb 1, 2014 01:30PM)
"What's the number where it becomes inherently immoral"

I think these guys do a good job of figuring out that number: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/03/08/wealth-video/
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 1, 2014 04:06PM)
Yes, I can see how for people with a simplistic view of how things work that would seem inherently immoral.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 1, 2014 04:15PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-01 14:30, Slide wrote:
"What's the number where it becomes inherently immoral"

I think these guys do a good job of figuring out that number: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/03/08/wealth-video/
[/quote]

I'm watching the video to find the number, but I had to pause at the first sleight-of-brain that I came across, which occurs in the first minute. After showing the graph that shows that 92% of respondents believe that wealth should be distributed more equally than it actually is, the narrator says, "...most Americans know that the system is skewed unfairly." That's not quite (and by "quite" I mean "close to") what they said. This should be interesting.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 1, 2014 04:22PM)
Darn...didn't get any other soundbites nearly that good, nor did I get that magic number.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Feb 1, 2014 05:05PM)
[img]http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-01-28-c05db479_large.jpeg[/img]
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 1, 2014 11:11PM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-01 08:58, Slide wrote:
So you are saying that morality is based on the individuals view of morality. So if you ask a hit man if it is moral to kill innocent people, and they say yes, than it's moral.
Some have different views. For me, murder is immoral no matter who says it is moral. 81 people controlling the world's wealth is immoral no matter who thinks it isn't.
[/quote]

First off a Hit man has no morals or he would not be a hit man.

So no that is not what I am saying. Didn't you read what I said?

This is beginning to remind me of the commercials on TV with the little kids at the . Which is better, a small pool or a big pool that has everything? :)

I agree with you that murder is immoral. WE both agree on that BUT..... Do you believe in abortion? Or do you not consider abortion murder? Now if you start with the whole thought process of where life begins and when a fetus can feel pain you are now qualifying your morality. So different people have different views on morality. Is your morality only based on murder? You are well off. Give the mission down the road half of your fortune so many can share what you have earned. that is the moral thing to doesn't it? :)

I always relate the story of the clergyman asking a person such as yourself. Slide if you had a million dollars would you give the poor fifty thousand? Which you answer quickly. Yes of course I would. Slide if you had five hundred thousand would you give the poor ten thousand dollars? Slide answers again...yes I would. The clergyman looks at Slide and says if you had twenty thousand dollars would you give the poor two hundred dollars? To which slide replies...That is not fair. You know I have twenty thousand dollars. End of story.

MOST people speak and wear moral shoes as long as they are comfortable. That is what I am saying.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 2, 2014 12:07AM)
How is a hitman who ends lives to make money any different at all from any other business person who destroys lives for the same purpose? At least the hitman is honest about it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 2, 2014 12:11AM)
Ditto the IRS and an armed robber.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 2, 2014 12:22AM)
Or me when I worked for the bank. Karma got me for that when they outsourced my job. Karma got them went they went bankrupt a year later.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 2, 2014 12:33AM)
[quote]
On 2014-02-01 12:00, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-02-01 08:58, Slide wrote:
So you are saying that morality is based on the individuals view of morality. So if you ask a hit man if it is moral to kill innocent people, and they say yes, than it's moral.
Some have different views. For me, murder is immoral no matter who says it is moral. 81 people controlling the world's wealth is immoral no matter who thinks it isn't.
[/quote]

What's the number where it becomes inherently immoral?
[/quote]
How many grains of sand make a sandpile?
It's not necessary to know the exact boundary point to point out the number that's clearly on one side of a boundary.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 2, 2014 11:08AM)
[quote]All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer[/quote]

The problem is that the science deniers seem permanently stuck in stage two.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 2, 2014 11:15AM)
Only an idiot who isn't a scientist would use the term science denier to describe all of the scientists who have doubts about climate alarmism.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Feb 2, 2014 12:48PM)
Why can't scientists be wrong?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 2, 2014 12:50PM)
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”–Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor, member of the Club of Rome.

All is number.
Message: Posted by: Anverdi-museum (Mar 2, 2014 07:29AM)
I just skimmed through this post, but wanted to point out a few things. First, most scientists outside the US believe we are heading toward an ice age...if you look at the computer projections of our scientists twenty years ago, Manhattan should be under water due to global warming. Frankly I believe global warming is the biggest lie of our time. The big proponents of gw are hypocrites...Al Gore is a joke, he burns and wastes more energy up keeping his mansions than anyone...if you 'talk the talk' you better 'walk the walk'. The only well known figure I can respect in this manner is Ed Begley Jr...I may not agree with him but I do respect him for doing what he believes. For the stats suggesting that the US is the biggest contributor to gw is ridiculous. We are one of the very few country's who made moves to correct this supposed problem...are you tired of having 02 sensors on your vehicle replaced everytime you turn around? A few people I know are HAV workers, they have been compliant with obtaining containment units for the gasses which years ago was released into the atmosphere..how about all of the spray cans in recent decades that were designed to cut down on emissions? The list goes on and on...China and Indis pollute everything, not only the air but their rivers and lakes. We have stringent rules to prevent that, companies have closed because of this. All that I am stating is that there are two sides to this argument, if the EPA had there way everything would be put back to the pre industrial revolution days, which is exactly what a member is on record saying. So before you buy into this do some research...I believe the earth is a filtration system that cleans itself...we have gigantic eruptions of volcanos and natural phenomena that are way worse than any emissions we as humans release and this clears up. Sorry, I do not buy into everything I hear or read without doing some research from an outside perspective.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 2, 2014 08:54AM)
[quote]
On Mar 2, 2014, Anverdi-museum wrote:
I just skimmed through this post, but wanted to point out a few things. First, most scientists outside the US believe we are heading toward an ice age...if you look at the computer projections of our scientists twenty years ago, Manhattan should be under water due to global warming. Frankly I believe global warming is the biggest lie of our time. The big proponents of gw are hypocrites...Al Gore is a joke, he burns and wastes more energy up keeping his mansions than anyone...if you 'talk the talk' you better 'walk the walk'. The only well known figure I can respect in this manner is Ed Begley Jr...I may not agree with him but I do respect him for doing what he believes. For the stats suggesting that the US is the biggest contributor to gw is ridiculous. We are one of the very few country's who made moves to correct this supposed problem...are you tired of having 02 sensors on your vehicle replaced everytime you turn around? A few people I know are HAV workers, they have been compliant with obtaining containment units for the gasses which years ago was released into the atmosphere..how about all of the spray cans in recent decades that were designed to cut down on emissions? The list goes on and on...China and Indis pollute everything, not only the air but their rivers and lakes. We have stringent rules to prevent that, companies have closed because of this. All that I am stating is that there are two sides to this argument, if the EPA had there way everything would be put back to the pre industrial revolution days, which is exactly what a member is on record saying. So before you buy into this do some research...I believe the earth is a filtration system that cleans itself...we have gigantic eruptions of volcanos and natural phenomena that are way worse than any emissions we as humans release and this clears up. Sorry, I do not buy into everything I hear or read without doing some research from an outside perspective.
[/quote]

Strong opinions. Any evidence?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2014 09:21AM)
[quote]A few people I know are HAV workers, they have been compliant with obtaining containment units for the gasses which years ago was released into the atmosphere..how about all of the spray cans in recent decades that were designed to cut down on emissions? The list goes on and on...China and Indis pollute everything, not only the air but their rivers and lakes. We have stringent rules to prevent that, ...[/quote]

And just who were the supporters of those rules that cut down on the pollution and who were the obstructers? Gotta love the hindsight in the United States of Amnesia.
Message: Posted by: Bazinga (Mar 2, 2014 09:39AM)
Can we assume since you posted your long list of opinions that would like people to read them?

May I offer a little advice?

If you learn to use proper punctuation, grammar, spelling, and sentence and paragraph structure, people might read what you post. I don't think I'm alone when I say that when I see a giant single paragraph, filled with ellipses, and outstanding spelling errors, I don't read it. And, no offense, it also makes the writer's intelligence to be such that he can't be taken too seriously.

Those who feel as I do about that post, have no idea what the writer's opinion or intention was. And usually that's for the best.

With all due respect,
Bazinga!
Message: Posted by: Anverdi-museum (Mar 2, 2014 10:57AM)
Sorry Bazinga...I am in the middle of a blizzard as we speak...gotta love global warming!! It is quite easy to hit the wrong key on my laptop, is that the best you have to defend this scam?? Maybe you just like to get your post numbers up a bit by talking nonsense...I do not know how this subject even got onto a magic forum but since it has I thought I would reply to hopefully get folks like yourself to think a bit before believing everything you read and hear...with all due respect there is usually a hidden agenda.



Over and out -

NOT Bazinga!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Mar 2, 2014 11:17AM)
[quote]
On Mar 2, 2014, Anverdi-museum wrote:
Sorry Bazinga...I am in the middle of a blizzard as we speak...gotta love global warming!! It is quite easy to hit the wrong key on my laptop, is that the best you have to defend this scam?? Maybe you just like to get your post numbers up a bit by talking nonsense...I do not know how this subject even got onto a magic forum but since it has I thought I would reply to hopefully get folks like yourself to think a bit before believing everything you read and hear...with all due respect there is usually a hidden agenda.



Over and out -

NOT Bazinga!
[/quote]

If your fingers are cold, does that mean that your core body temperature is not 97F?

Or is your blizzard the only important part of the planet?

What is YOUR agenda?
Message: Posted by: w_s_anderson (Mar 2, 2014 11:19AM)
Anverdi-Museum,

Posts in the NVMS section don't count toward your total........just an FYI. And this forum is called, "Not very magicical but still." Which is precicely how this topic got here. I actually violated the rules yesterday by posting about magic.

I haven't seen you here before....... Welcome to the fray!!

Now back to the global warming debate!
Message: Posted by: Anverdi-museum (Mar 2, 2014 01:55PM)
Thanks Mr. Anderson, great to feel a little welcome. Like I said I just stumbled across this, I did not mean to cause an uproar and certainly did not know we had to write like Shakespeare to post something here as the above gentleman thrashed me. Just wanted to express my opinion. :nose:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 2, 2014 03:16PM)
2052

“2052” has been accepted as “Report to the Club of Rome” on the basis of a peer review by Club of Rome Members.

(Rotterdam, the Netherlands): 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, by Jorgen Randers, launched by the Club of Rome on May 7, raises the possibility that humankind might not survive on the planet if it continues on its path of over-consumption and short-termism.

“The Report says the main cause of future problems is the excessively short-term predominant political and economic model. “We need a system of governance that takes a more long-term view”

By ones who know.

http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=4211



The first person I can find to mention the arrested development conspiracy is Churchill when speaking of the communist revolution.

International Jews.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill. 1920

http://www.wendag.com/forum/pages.php?pageid=1


"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

The First Global Revolution - Club of Rome
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 2, 2014 04:50PM)
Those who would like to read the Club of Rome comments quoted above in context should see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome#Current_activities
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 2, 2014 05:16PM)
Those who would like to read the Club of Rome comments quoted above in context should read the book and here is the link to it “again”. https://archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution


The First Global Revolution is a book written by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider,

Here is a bit from Alexander King obit

“Alexander King
Pioneering scientist at the forefront of the environmental cause

Alexander King, who has died aged 98, was a pioneering scientist who warned of the dangers to the environment from extensive industrial development. He was one of the people who commissioned the 1972 Limits to Growth report, which triggered the first wave of international concern about the environment. This remains one of the world's largest selling books on the environment. He then became one of the founders of the international thinktank, the Club of Rome, which the Duke of Edinburgh has called the "conscience of the world".
Limits to Growth (now in its third edition) touched a raw nerve in the body politic. Its warnings resonated with the fears of others that there was an emerging environmental crisis. The United Nations Environment Programme was established a few months after it appeared. The word "environment" does not even appear in the 1945 UN Charter, and King helped expand the UN's role into environmental protection.”

("environment" does not even appear in the 1945 UN Charter, and King helped expand the UN's role into environmental protection.” eh. It goes on to say:)

“King was intrigued by the way a small group of people had created the first industrial revolution in the 18th century. They met together informally each month in the north of England to discuss their industrial projects. He envisaged that a small informal group of people from a variety of backgrounds (never more than 100 in total) would discuss reconciling economic growth and environmental protection. It was called the Club of Rome simply because the co-founder Aurelio Peccei was an Italian businessman with offices in Rome. Well into his 70s and 80s, King travelled extensively, meeting political leaders and environmental activists to discuss how best to create what is now known as sustainable development.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/may/02/obituaries.obituaries

Which reminds me of The Four Yorkshireman.
Message: Posted by: robvh (Mar 4, 2014 12:25AM)
But 97% of scientists agree about the reality of anthropogenic global warming (sorry, I forgot it's called "climate change" when it's freezing outside).

"Consensus": http://beaconnews.ca/calgary/2014/02/climate-change-consensus-just-bandwagon-psychology/
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 4, 2014 12:50AM)
I have a pretty open mind, I think, but I find the anti-science crowd to be quite irritating. The process exists for a reason. Scientists aren't out there making **** up and then not testing it. (Well, except that Wakefield guy. He can contract the fleshrot for all I care.)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 4, 2014 01:10AM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, robvh wrote:
But 97% of scientists agree about the reality of anthropogenic global warming (sorry, I forgot it's called "climate change" when it's freezing outside).


[/quote]

As has been stated many times, today's weather where you live (freezing outside) is hardly the same thing as climate. Global temperature is rising and most scientists agree that human activity is partially responsible.

But, as expected, every time it snows somewhere there is sure to be an anti-science wag who'll say "So where's the warming?" Sadly, that stopped being clever about five seconds after it was first uttered by someone who didn't know the difference between global temperature/climate and local weather.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Mar 4, 2014 08:05AM)
Not only is the "science" incomplete, it has also been proven to be tampered with. Even the 97% figure is bogus but if it were accurate, that still proves nothing. But don't look now, even the staunchest environmentalist types are finally admitting the truth... It seems that the hoaxers are the ones needing a refitting for the tin hats.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569215/Humans-not-blame-global-warming-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html

Warming the planet might actually be something we may want to do in the very near future.

Glen
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 4, 2014 08:57AM)
Follow the money, friend. Patrick Moore has been raking it in from the energy companies for a long time now. He has not been a "staunch environmentalist" for years.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 4, 2014 09:41AM)
Are you for or against arrested development and totalitarian global governance?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 4, 2014 09:52AM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, GlenD wrote:

...Warming the planet might actually be something we may want to do in the very near future.

Glen
[/quote]

Unless you live in a coastal city of course. Great idea, let's speed up the melting of the polar ice pack. What could go wrong?

I love how some have gone from denying global warming to arguing that it is actually a good thing.

As to the paid energy company spokesman, Patrick Moore, he is hardly representative of the scientific communitity:

[quote]... Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[39] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."

The writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). Moore was hired as a consultant to write an environmental 'inspection report' on APP operations. According to Monbiot, Moore's company is not a monitoring firm and the consultants used were experts in public relations, not tropical ecology or Indonesian law. Monbiot has said that sections of the report were directly copied from an APP PR brochure,[27][47] adding that hiring Moore is now what companies do if their brand is turning toxic.[27]

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service criticized Moore saying that his comment in 1976 that "it should be remembered that there are employed in the nuclear industry some very high-powered public relations organizations. One can no more trust them to tell the truth about nuclear power than about which brand of toothpaste will result in this apparently insoluble problem" was forecasting his own future.[48] The Columbia Journalism Review points out that Moore's position at the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition was paid for by the nuclear industry and he is in fact essentially a paid spokesperson.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29#Criticism
Message: Posted by: Chance Wolf (Mar 4, 2014 10:00AM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, landmark wrote:
Follow the money, friend. Patrick Moore has been raking it in from the energy companies for a long time now. He has not been a "staunch environmentalist" for years.
[/quote]

So Patrick Moore vacates the cause, denounces it's true intention...and suddenly he is a greedy capitalist...unreal.

uhhh...hasn't almost EVERYONE been "raking it in" on the Global Warming agenda?
Let's not forget the "founder" Al Gore who has become incredibly wealthy from all of his true believers.
So why not come down on big Al for raking it in.
No..free pass as usual.

It is so amazing how people will ignore facts from either side of the argument just to make their point or...their money.
At this point it seems that money has taken over the true goal and that is to discover the TRUTH..."weather" you like it or not.

This whole idea has turned into a HUGE CASH COW and if you don't see it then you are in absolute denial.

I think there is TRUTH on BOTH sides but you all are so *** stubborn to accept it and, in the end, the "Non believers" will continue to believe that we can go around ****ing on our beautiful planet with no repercussions...and the Libs become like the religious zealots that they so vehemently despise by never questioning a word or "science" behind their new religion...so funny how things go.

Before you all go jumping down my throat thinking I have no clue of the overall "cause"...my Dad is one of the top environmental Scientists in the country.
He is one of the "Go to Guys" our government uses to determine environmental impact due to man's handy work on this planet.

He HATES politics for the record. Takes no sides in that game.
The only difference between him and so many other scientists is that he is not influenced by EITHER side...what they used to call a true scientist.
One of the smartest men I have ever known and pretty much one of the few I listen to regarding this subject.

I have a strange feeling once the cash cow has been slaughtered that you will hear a lot less on this subject.
Message: Posted by: Chance Wolf (Mar 4, 2014 10:16AM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, robvh wrote:
But 97% of scientists agree about the reality of anthropogenic global warming (sorry, I forgot it's called "climate change" when it's freezing outside).


[/quote]

As has been stated many times, today's weather where you live (freezing outside) is hardly the same thing as climate. Global temperature is rising and most scientists agree that human activity is partially responsible.

But, as expected, every time it snows somewhere there is sure to be an anti-science wag who'll say "So where's the warming?" Sadly, that stopped being clever about five seconds after it was first uttered by someone who didn't know the difference between global temperature/climate and local weather.
[/quote]

Bob,
I know we have had a few head butts but I really want to make serious point here as well as example of the problem with these debates.
You stated the following...
"and most scientists agree that human activity is partially responsible."

So let's get to the meat of this comment.
How much human activity is responsible?
98% ??
50% ??
.005% ??

This is CRITICAL to the argument at it's core.
I truly want to know this and it should be stated when used as an argument..at least a reasonable estimate.

My other HUGE point is this...
Given that America has reduced its manufacturing (Old school smoke stacks piling crap into the air) down to *** near nothing, it is clear that China, India, and every other country who have taken up the manufacturing for the world, are dumping an inarguable overwhelming majority of this crap into our air and water...and NOTHING is being done to stop them.
It is like America is dropping a teaspoon full of crap into the air while they are dumping 50 Gallon barrel drums and we are getting squeezed the hardest.
So you can squeeze America until the last drop of productive blood is gone but until we stop these idiots...there is no way this movement can make a difference.
Please educate me on how China and the rest are being held to the same regulations as America and other countries??

So let me end by stating I am not trying to argue with you. I respect that you are an intelligent and well read man.
I am looking for answers and a conversation.
I have no dog in this game. Only what is good for our children.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 4, 2014 10:23AM)
Chance- I agree that China and others create a serious problem that needs to be addressed. But we can hardly do that if those who deny AGW won't even acknowledge that there's a problem in the first place.
Message: Posted by: Chance Wolf (Mar 4, 2014 10:47AM)
Bob,
Yes, that is true. Let's remove them from the equation for a second as the movement is progressing and seems to be the common belief that it IS a problem at some level.
So should it not be the prime goal on the agenda to address these countries??
I mean...it does not take a scientist to determine that they are the biggest contributors to the problem.
Take a look at the Chinese LANDSCAPES of factories...literally as far as the eye can see.
It is almost unbelievable.

Even if the entire Climate Change movement did not exist...this should be obvious that they need to be addressed...however...how in the hell do we tell them what to do?
We have no say. No control.

So the movement seems to be ignoring the main culprits while squeezing every dime out of our country to keep up to standards that, in the end, if the other countries continue as they do...will have no effect.
See my point?
It truly bugs the hell out of me.

If you happen to discover some legitimate stats on how much mankind is actually contributing, I would like to hear about it as I believe it is another key point in the issue.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 4, 2014 11:32AM)
Nothing can be done until agendas are made clear. Many in the AGW movement have a political agenda. Hard to deny that. Until we make it an actual debate about science and not politics it stays stuck.

For example if polar ice caps melt why do cities on coasts flood? My drink does not overflow once ice melts.

We need to lose 9th doom and gloom and hysteria and talk about actual sciencey stuff.
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 4, 2014 11:41AM)
Http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 4, 2014 11:47AM)
Though sea ice is indeed melting, it's land ice melting in Greenland, the Antarctic, etc. that causes sea level change.

Sea level change, of course, particularly effects coastal areas. In Rhode Island the problem is significant. Simply Google "Rhode Island Sea level change." You'll be linked to studies being conducted at the University of Rhode Island as well as by the insurance industry. Obviously the latter takes the problem seriously.

See, for example: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2013/10/14/307979.htm
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 4, 2014 11:53AM)
I'm no meteorologist, but I'm pretty sure that changes in average air temperatures can also have some effect on weather. I mean, isn't there some kind of relationship between the movement of warm air and some sort of stormy thing? Aren't stormy things sometimes... bad?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Mar 4, 2014 04:00PM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, critter wrote:
I'm no meteorologist, but I'm pretty sure that changes in average air temperatures can also have some effect on weather. I mean, isn't there some kind of relationship between the movement of warm air and some sort of stormy thing? Aren't stormy things sometimes... bad?
[/quote]

Yes, stormy things. Bad.

Last year lots less stormy things than normal. Good.

(Thanks for the opportunity for some intelligent debate on this thread.)
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 4, 2014 04:08PM)
I'd still want to see a long-term overall pattern, for the same reason that we don't give a questionnaire to only one or two people if we want to understand a behavior or psychological phenomenon. We need as much data as possible for an accurate representation of the overall reality.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 4, 2014 04:37PM)
THERE IS NO LONG TERM DATA. We only have a microcosm of data.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 4, 2014 05:05PM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, critter wrote:
I'm no meteorologist, but I'm pretty sure that changes in average air temperatures can also have some effect on weather. I mean, isn't there some kind of relationship between the movement of warm air and some sort of stormy thing? Aren't stormy things sometimes... bad?
[/quote]



Last year lots less stormy things than normal. Good.


[/quote]

Where? By your house or worldwide?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 4, 2014 05:11PM)
Bob you are right it is a global thing. BUT you must agree that if we use that same theory, which is right, we need to apply it to time as well. We have what 100 years of data at most? NOT ALL OF IT ACCURATE. In terms of the billions of years old this mud ball is 100 years does not even blip the radar.

So let me ask what the goal is? What is the proper temp for the "globe" to be at for you and the 95% of scientists to be happy and declare victory? What is the end game? Certainly there must be a final perfect temp for the globe to be right?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 4, 2014 05:11PM)
Here's some longer term data. (From the University of Rhode Island)

[quote]Sea levels have been rising over the last century on both global and local scales. This
increase is a result of several major factors, two of which are most influential. First,
the increase in water temperatures in recent decades has led to higher sea levels
because warmer water takes up more space than cooler water (thermal expansion). Sec-
ond, warmer air and water temperatures have increased melt rates for the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets and mountain glaciers, adding more water to the ocean...


Average global sea level has increased by 7 inches since 1900, which threatens low-lying coastal
communities.
+
Since 1930, sea level in rhode Island has increased by an average of 1 inch per decade.
+
over the past half century, sea levels in the northeast have been increasing 3 to 4 times faster than
the global average rate, resulting in a 6-inch rise between 1970 and 2012.
+
With accelerating rates, sea level is projected to increase by 3 to 5 feet above 1990 levels in rhode
Island by 2100, with a potential for 1 foot of sea level rise by 2050.[/quote]

More data at: http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/z_downloads/climate_SLR_factsheet2013.pdf
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Mar 4, 2014 05:19PM)
And that's all because of the teeny tiny increase in carbon emissions that have been expelled during this past century?
Of course.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 4, 2014 05:47PM)
Bob I am asking for data from a million years ago. 2 Million, a billion, 4 billion.

From 1930? Not much to go on is it?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 4, 2014 06:23PM)
I don't believe they were collecting data back then, Danny. But we do know that carbon emissions and warming began to increase more quickly after the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century.

I'm sure you're not saying that if we don't have climate data from millions of years ago, we should just ignore the demonstrable increase in temperature and sea level over the last century. Are you?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 4, 2014 06:25PM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, GlenD wrote:
And that's all because of the teeny tiny increase in carbon emissions that have been expelled during this past century?
Of course.
[/quote]

Well if you bothered to read the papers and the other information at the URI site I linked to, you wouldn't have to ask that.

But, sure, there's no problem, so there's no point in doing anything. Who cares about future generations? What matters is the bottom line of big oil and their Congressional shills.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 4, 2014 06:45PM)
Average global sea level has increased by 7 inches since 1900, which threatens low-lying coastal communities.
+
Since 1930, sea level in rhode Island has increased by an average of 1 inch per decade.

?

They must have magic sea in rhode Island.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 4, 2014 06:55PM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I don't believe they were collecting data back then, Danny. But we do know that carbon emissions and warming began to increase more quickly after the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century.

I'm sure you're not saying that if we don't have climate data from millions of years ago, we should just ignore the demonstrable increase in temperature and sea level over the last century. Are you?
[/quote]

I am asking some questions. What is the optimal temp that you are looking for?
WHEN did that temp occur in history?
"Demonstrable"? By that do you mean that millions of years ago it didn't happen? How do we know this is not a "cycle" the earth goes through anyhow no matter if we are here or not?
With only 100 years of data how can you conclusively conclude anything when we are talking BILLIONS of years?

These are all pretty well unanswered questions and I think before we start to monkey with things like a fragile economy we need to take a pretty hard look at them and set some goals. Find out some hard costs, and what the benefit of spending that money will be exactly. Not based on models that change all the time but on hard data. We do not know enough yet. WE NEED to keep looking into it. But all the doom and gloom going on does not help.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 4, 2014 06:55PM)
Thanks for the non-sequitor, Tommy. Rhode Island's is obviously not exactly the same as the average GLOBAL increase in sea level.

Meanwhile, here are more facts about the increase in carbon emissions into the earth's atmosphere:

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 4, 2014 07:02PM)
How is it possible for Rhode Island's sea level not to be exactly the same as the average GLOBAL increase in sea level as say, anywhere else?

Go and run a bath and you will see that it fills up at the same level and not faster at one end than the other. Unless you can do magic!

Bob was never one to let science get in the way of a good magic trick. :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 4, 2014 11:37PM)
Chance Wolf wrote concerning my comment that Moore was raking in the big bucks since serving his global energy masters:
[quote]uhhh...hasn't almost EVERYONE been "raking it in" on the Global Warming agenda?[/quote]

uhh...no. Not by a long shot.

[quote]Let's not forget the "founder" Al Gore who has become incredibly wealthy from all of his true believers.
So why not come down on big Al for raking it in.
No..free pass as usual.[/quote]
Founder? Al Gore has about as much to do with environmentalism as Lady Gaga has to do with the creation of nuclear weapons. Agreed he's a slimeball. Not agreed that he's an environmentalist. You're confusing leech-sucking capitalist with environmentalist. (That one was for rockwall, who might need some intended laughs too from time to time.)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Mar 5, 2014 07:51AM)
No laughter that time landmark. You hit THAT nail on the head. I don't thing anyone REALLY thinks Al Gore is an environmentalist, just that he claims to be.

Maybe if you had tried to call him a right wing tea partier ...
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Mar 5, 2014 08:30AM)
Anybody paying any attention to this issue at all knows full well that it is all about carbon emissions reduction (those poisonous mean old greenhouse gasses) and our present primary energy source(s). And just for the record, I would rather be in bed with "big oil" (which actually produces something of value and might I say something of necessity for our way of life) than "big scam", which is nothing but a power and money grab with a by product of cutting the U.S. down to size (relatively speaking) in the process.
Message: Posted by: Anverdi-museum (Mar 5, 2014 10:02AM)
Very interesting that in the 1970's and prior scientists warned of a coming ice age, now the thought has changed 180 degrees. Sorry guys, I am not buying the whole global warming idea, there simply in not enough data to support this and I find it hard to believe special interest groups are not behind this. http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 5, 2014 10:10AM)
Facts don't change if you don't buy them.
Message: Posted by: critter (Mar 5, 2014 10:31AM)
Everybody knows that Al Gore invented the environment. He's just trying to protect his creation guys.


(I actually like Al Gore. But I like Barnum too.)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Mar 5, 2014 11:20AM)
[quote]
On Mar 5, 2014, Anverdi-museum wrote:
Very interesting that in the 1970's and prior scientists warned of a coming ice age, now the thought has changed 180 degrees. Sorry guys, I am not buying the whole global warming idea, there simply in not enough data to support this and I find it hard to believe special interest groups are not behind this. http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336
[/quote]

The notion that there was a scientific concensus concerning a impending ice age in the 1970's is a myth. While there were a few studies making such claims there were six times more studies prediciting the warming trend we are experiencing now.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Mar 5, 2014 11:29AM)
And yet, it was the impending ice age that made it into Time Magazine. Why do you think that would be?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 5, 2014 11:52AM)
In the topsy turvy world of the warmers the sea is not level.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Danny (Mar 5, 2014 11:13PM)
Actually we do have a weather history, Tree Rings!
Message: Posted by: Payne (Mar 6, 2014 12:11AM)
[quote]
On Mar 5, 2014, rockwall wrote:
And yet, it was the impending ice age that made it into Time Magazine. Why do you think that would be?
[/quote]

Slow news day.

TIME Magazine, in case you haven't noticed, isn't a scientific journal and the mainstream media is notorious for misinterpreting scientific material

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/it-s-news-but-is-it-true-1.1282472

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 6, 2014 12:25AM)
Yes- as the video Payne linked to shows, the warming effect of greenhouse gases has been known for a VERY long time.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Mar 6, 2014 08:22AM)
Yeah, it's also kind of a necessary for life effect also. Without them none of us would be here.
Message: Posted by: Chance Wolf (Mar 6, 2014 08:59AM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, tommy wrote:
How is it possible for Rhode Island's sea level not to be exactly the same as the average GLOBAL increase in sea level as say, anywhere else?

Go and run a bath and you will see that it fills up at the same level and not faster at one end than the other. Unless you can do magic!

Bob was never one to let science get in the way of a good magic trick. :)
[/quote]

Anyone care to answer this question???
It appears to be a legitimate point that has been avoided.
Please explain as I have no idea how this could happen as well.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Mar 6, 2014 09:34AM)
[quote]
On Mar 6, 2014, Chance Wolf wrote:
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, tommy wrote:
How is it possible for Rhode Island's sea level not to be exactly the same as the average GLOBAL increase in sea level as say, anywhere else?

Go and run a bath and you will see that it fills up at the same level and not faster at one end than the other. Unless you can do magic!

Bob was never one to let science get in the way of a good magic trick. :)
[/quote]

Anyone care to answer this question???
It appears to be a legitimate point that has been avoided.
Please explain as I have no idea how this could happen as well.
[/quote]
Currents and tides could explain it.

Those are among the reasons that parts of the Pacific ocean are higher than parts of the Atlantic.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 6, 2014 09:38AM)
Also, thermal expansion would differ depending on temperature.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 6, 2014 09:48AM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, tommy wrote:
How is it possible for Rhode Island's sea level not to be exactly the same as the average GLOBAL increase in sea level as say, anywhere else?

Go and run a bath and you will see that it fills up at the same level and not faster at one end than the other. Unless you can do magic!

Bob was never one to let science get in the way of a good magic trick. :)
[/quote]

A bathtub is a uniform area and thus would fill uniformally (sp).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 6, 2014 09:52AM)
No, it's not magic, tommy. There are many factors involved:

[quote]Local mean sea level (LMSL) is defined as the height of the sea with respect to a land benchmark, averaged over a period of time (such as a month or a year) long enough that fluctuations caused by waves and tides are smoothed out. One must adjust perceived changes in LMSL to account for vertical movements of the land, which can be of the same order (mm/yr) as sea level changes. Some land movements occur because of isostatic adjustment of the mantle to the melting of ice sheets at the end of the last ice age. The weight of the ice sheet depresses the underlying land, and when the ice melts away the land slowly rebounds. Changes in ground-based ice volume also affect local and regional sea levels by the readjustment of the geoid and true polar wander. Atmospheric pressure, ocean currents and local ocean temperature changes can affect LMSL as well.

Eustatic change (as opposed to local change) results in an alteration to the global sea levels due to changes in either the volume of water in the world oceans or net changes in the volume of the ocean basins.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level#Local_and_eustatic_sea_level

From National Geographic:

[quote]Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth's surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat.

The rise in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by this ongoing global climate change:

Thermal expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.

Melting of glaciers and polar ice caps: Large ice formations, like glaciers and the polar ice caps, naturally melt back a bit each summer. But in the winter, snows, made primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater-than-average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. This imbalance results in a significant net gain in runoff versus evaporation for the ocean, causing sea levels to rise.

Ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica: As with glaciers and the ice caps, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt at an accelerated pace. Scientists also believe meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's and West Antarctica's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. Moreover, higher sea temperatures are causing the massive ice shelves that extend out from Antarctica to melt from below, weaken, and break off.

Consequences

When sea levels rise rapidly, as they have been doing, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats. As seawater reaches farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, flooding of wetlands, contamination of aquifers and agricultural soils, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.

When large storms hit land, higher sea levels mean bigger, more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path.

In addition, hundreds of millions of people live in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Higher sea levels would force them to abandon their homes and relocate. Low-lying islands could be submerged completely.

How High Will It Go?

Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and likely will accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the amount is an inexact science. A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London and Los Angeles.[/quote]

ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
Message: Posted by: Payne (Mar 6, 2014 11:02AM)
[quote]
On Mar 4, 2014, tommy wrote:
How is it possible for Rhode Island's sea level not to be exactly the same as the average GLOBAL increase in sea level as say, anywhere else?

Go and run a bath and you will see that it fills up at the same level and not faster at one end than the other. Unless you can do magic!

Bob was never one to let science get in the way of a good magic trick. :)
[/quote]

from http://epa.gov/climatestudents/impacts/signs/sea-level.html

Why does sea level change by different amounts in different places?

Sea level is rising faster in some places than others because of wind patterns, ocean currents, and other factors. In addition, sea level may seem like it's changing more in certain places than others because the land itself may be rising or sinking.

In some places, the land is rising or sinking because of plate tectonics—the same forces that cause earthquakes, create volcanoes, and build mountain ranges. In addition to plate tectonics, land can also sink because people have pumped lots of oil, natural gas, or water out of the ground. When the land is also rising, sea level rise might not seem so bad. But in coastal areas where the land is sinking, the effects of sea level rise will be even worse.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 6, 2014 11:19AM)
[quote]On Mar 4, 2014, tommy wrote:


Bob was never one to let science get in the way of a good magic trick. :)
[/quote]

Just as tommy has never been one to let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 6, 2014 12:45PM)
I am going to simplify and say "erosion" may be one reason sea levels are different in some places than others.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either side. I am just saying that it seems like a pretty straight forward answer sort of. I could be wrong though.
Message: Posted by: Pecan_Creek (Mar 6, 2014 04:52PM)
The reason aliens visit our planet is to dump their grey water tanks on their space ships. Thus causing the oceans to rise. That's the real reason for the pollution too. Humans have nothing to do with it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 6, 2014 05:12PM)
I see.....tell me more.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 7, 2014 12:55AM)
The sea levels are not different in some places than others.

There are no hills of sea for ships to up and down. :)

When you leave Rhode Island on a boat you do not come to a big slope of sea and slide down it to a lower level.

Not unless you are carrying your boat on your head and walking across the sea bed.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 7, 2014 09:53AM)
Do you know the Panama Canal[q] The canal is a series of locks which you have to traverse one at a time. Why[q] [Forgive me, for some reason, the question mark on this keyboard doesn't work]
You have to traverse these locks because the sea level is different at one end of the canal from the other.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 7, 2014 10:53AM)
Why do some find it odd that sea level varies in different areas? It's been more than adequately explained in the links posted earlier. (Or is National Geographic in on the conspiracy too, tommy?)

Additionally, did you ever hear of tides? Do tides come in and out at the same time at every place in the world? Now add currents, thermal expansion, plate shifts, erosion, etc.

Now call the University of Rhode Island and tell them that they're all wrong. I'm sure they will appreciate your expertise.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Mar 7, 2014 11:18AM)
Aah variation... just like climate change, we're to blame for it all!
Message: Posted by: Pecan_Creek (Mar 7, 2014 12:24PM)
[quote]
On Mar 7, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
Do you know the Panama Canal[q] The canal is a series of locks which you have to traverse one at a time. Why[q] [Forgive me, for some reason, the question mark on this keyboard doesn't work]
You have to traverse these locks because the sea level is different at one end of the canal from the other.
[/quote]

So. if the locks weren't there and it was just a channel would the Pacific drain into the Atlantic ?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 7, 2014 12:37PM)
[quote]
On Mar 7, 2014, GlenD wrote:
Aah variation... just like climate change, we're to blame for it all!
[/quote]

Of course no one ever said that. (Perfect example of the straw man fallacy in action, BTW) How does the statement that human activities CONTRIBUTE to climate change translate to human activities are to blame for it all?

It doesn't.
Message: Posted by: MRSharpe (Mar 7, 2014 12:52PM)
Good point Bob. But is the question one of absolutes. There are many contributing factors, one of which is human activities. The real question is whether or not human activity is the major cause of the geometric increase in global temperature increases, melting of glaciers and ice packs at the poles and all the other indicators that climatologists observe have occurred in the last 150 years or so. If it will take another hundred years to make this more than speculation and the climatologists are correct then we should try to do something about it before it's too late. A side benefit is the development of many technologies which have great economic potential.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Mar 7, 2014 02:11PM)
[quote]
On Mar 7, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
...
(Perfect example of the straw man fallacy in action, BTW)
...
[/quote]

Ah yes, the straw man fallacy. Something Bob is well acquainted with. As he will be quick to point it out when used against him and quick to ignore complaints about when he uses is against you.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 7, 2014 02:32PM)
MRSharpe- I agree that the extent of man's involvement is yet to be determined. It's know, though, that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased significantly ever since the industrial revolution.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 7, 2014 03:49PM)
“Why do some find it odd that sea level varies in different areas?

Why because the claim that “sea level varies in different areas” is complete and utter nonsense that is why!

The sea is a continuous body of salt water that covers most of the Earth's surface. If the sea was not a continuous body of salt water but several separated bodies then one could have different levels. The Caspian Sea perhaps may be landlocked and separated and so that one might be a different level I guess. Taking a bucket of the sea is like taking a bucket of water out of ones swimming pool, it levels out.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Mar 14, 2014 11:34AM)
Https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111#comment_333276

AGW Alarmism really is like religion! Some think it heretical to have a contrary point of view and worthy of imprisonment. Much like Galileo was convicted of heresy by the church for believing the Earth revolved around the Sun.

"Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?"
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Mar 21, 2014 08:25PM)
Http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032114-694249-american-physical-society-reviews-climate-change.htm

Mythical Climate Change Consensus Hits An Iceberg

"Climate change "deniers," as global warm-mongers call those who think empirical evidence is more reliable than computer models, may soon count among their number a 50,000-strong body of physicists.
At the risk of being accused of embracing what alarmists call the flat-earth view of climate change, the American Physical Society has appointed a balanced, six-person committee to review its stance on so-called climate change that includes three distinguished skeptics: Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen. Their credentials are impressive."

"A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?
The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?""
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 22, 2014 10:13AM)
“So often did rain follow the major battles of the American Civil war that meteorologists believed the concussion of the combat was the cause. Theologians had another explanation.”

Thomas Boynton, journal Aug. 19 – 26 1775.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 30, 2014 04:30AM)
[quote]
On Mar 7, 2014, tommy wrote:
“Why do some find it odd that sea level varies in different areas?

Why because the claim that “sea level varies in different areas” is complete and utter nonsense that is why!

The sea is a continuous body of salt water that covers most of the Earth's surface. If the sea was not a continuous body of salt water but several separated bodies then one could have different levels. The Caspian Sea perhaps may be landlocked and separated and so that one might be a different level I guess. Taking a bucket of the sea is like taking a bucket of water out of ones swimming pool, it levels out.
[/quote]

Then why do they need to raise or lower the ships traveling through the Panama Canal?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Mar 30, 2014 09:04AM)
[quote]
On Mar 30, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On Mar 7, 2014, tommy wrote:
“Why do some find it odd that sea level varies in different areas?

Why because the claim that “sea level varies in different areas” is complete and utter nonsense that is why!

The sea is a continuous body of salt water that covers most of the Earth's surface. If the sea was not a continuous body of salt water but several separated bodies then one could have different levels. The Caspian Sea perhaps may be landlocked and separated and so that one might be a different level I guess. Taking a bucket of the sea is like taking a bucket of water out of ones swimming pool, it levels out.
[/quote]

Then why do they need to raise or lower the ships traveling through the Panama Canal?
[/quote]

OMG. You kidding right?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 30, 2014 10:12AM)
Canal

Lock, canal, stretch of water enclosed by gates, one at each end, built into a canal or river for the purpose of raising or lowering a vessel from one water level to another. A lock may also be built into the entrance of a dock for the same purpose. When the ship is to be raised to a higher level, it enters the lock and a gate is closed behind it. Water is let into the lock until its level equals that of the water ahead. The forward gate is then opened, and the ship progresses on the higher level. The procedure is reversed when the vessel is to pass from a higher to a lower level. As many locks as necessary are used in a given waterway. Most modern locks are made of concrete, although some have walls of steel-sheet piles or floors of natural rock or sand. The mitre gate, frequently used in the United States, consists of two swinging sections forming an arc or shallow V, with the apex pointed toward high water so that water pressure keeps both sections tightly sealed when closed. Another type of gate in common use consists of one piece of sheet steel that slides across the entrance to the lock on rollers or is lifted into the air or sunk underwater. The gates of most locks are operated by hydraulic or electric power. Water is poured into or out of locks through culverts built into the masonry structure of the lock walls. Among well-known locks are those of the Panama Canal.


http://www.reference.com/browse/canal

Does that help Ed, in understanding the difference between a canal and the sea? It also seems to me you are confusing level and depth: A swimming pool can be 3ft deep at the shallow end and 6ft deep at the deep end but the level of the water is no different at one than the other. The level is not the depth and the canal is not the sea. Lock is the key word to think about.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 30, 2014 12:40PM)
[quote]
On Mar 30, 2014, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On Mar 30, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]
On Mar 7, 2014, tommy wrote:
“Why do some find it odd that sea level varies in different areas?

Why because the claim that “sea level varies in different areas” is complete and utter nonsense that is why!

The sea is a continuous body of salt water that covers most of the Earth's surface. If the sea was not a continuous body of salt water but several separated bodies then one could have different levels. The Caspian Sea perhaps may be landlocked and separated and so that one might be a different level I guess. Taking a bucket of the sea is like taking a bucket of water out of ones swimming pool, it levels out.
[/quote]

Then why do they need to raise or lower the ships traveling through the Panama Canal?
[/quote]

OMG. You kidding right?
[/quote]

No. I'm not. The Panama Canal is a series of locks to raise or lower (depending on their direction) the boats traveling through it.
Why would they have to do this if the sea level weren't different at each end of the Canal.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 30, 2014 12:42PM)
[quote]
On Mar 30, 2014, tommy wrote:
Canal

Lock, canal, stretch of water enclosed by gates, one at each end, built into a canal or river for the purpose of raising or lowering a vessel from one water level to another. A lock may also be built into the entrance of a dock for the same purpose. When the ship is to be raised to a higher level, it enters the lock and a gate is closed behind it. Water is let into the lock until its level equals that of the water ahead. The forward gate is then opened, and the ship progresses on the higher level. The procedure is reversed when the vessel is to pass from a higher to a lower level. As many locks as necessary are used in a given waterway. Most modern locks are made of concrete, although some have walls of steel-sheet piles or floors of natural rock or sand. The mitre gate, frequently used in the United States, consists of two swinging sections forming an arc or shallow V, with the apex pointed toward high water so that water pressure keeps both sections tightly sealed when closed. Another type of gate in common use consists of one piece of sheet steel that slides across the entrance to the lock on rollers or is lifted into the air or sunk underwater. The gates of most locks are operated by hydraulic or electric power. Water is poured into or out of locks through culverts built into the masonry structure of the lock walls. Among well-known locks are those of the Panama Canal.


http://www.reference.com/browse/canal

Does that help Ed, in understanding the difference between a canal and the sea? It also seems to me you are confusing level and depth: A swimming pool can be 3ft deep at the shallow end and 6ft deep at the deep end but the level of the water is no different at one than the other. The level is not the depth and the canal is not the sea. Lock is the key word to think about.
[/quote]

What does the canal connect? Why are those two points at different levels or depths? What would happen if they just opened all the locks and let the water equalize?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 30, 2014 01:01PM)
My understanding is that when the Panama Canal was built they wanted to take advantage of a high level lake that already existed along the proposed path. That eliminated a lot of digging. The lake is, however, at a higher level than the portions of the canal on either side. Hence the locks are used on one end to raise the ships to the level of the lake and then to lower them on the other end.

That said, sea level varies. It is not a constant and is never the same everywhere. As I noted earlier, thermal expansion, low pressure areas, tides, storms, the melting of land ice, etc. et al, all contribute to this. When it is high tide in some places it is low tide in others. The overall rise in sea level makes those high ends higher.

The situation in Rhode Island, discussed in the Rhode Island University studies I cited earlier, is illustrative of the problem.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 30, 2014 01:35PM)
Oh my lord this is hilarious! Try reading a book... ahhh never mind.

Can we all PLEASE just agree that nobody really knows jack about what they are arguing about, yet somehow have very entrenched opinions about it. (No Bob that is not directed at you.)

Sea levels are not the same everywhere. What a boring planet that would be.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 30, 2014 02:35PM)
Well in short, water, like everything else, is effected by gravity. Water will run down where it can. The Panama canal is 85 ft above sea level. So if they opened the locks it would run down and empty into the sea I guess. This would increase sea level by virtue of the volume of water added to it from the canal.

Where I live there are lots canals and one runs along side the bar. I often go for a stroll along there in the summertime. They are quite places in the heart of the city bushel. They used to be a transport system to the warehouses and all. The barges are now mainly used for pleasure and living on. There are many cool little pubs along the Canals, which are more friendly, than the average pubs in the city. I use them to do a few cards tricks for fun. Which has nothing to do with price of fish but still. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 30, 2014 04:37PM)
It appears that my recollection about the Panama Canal was correct. Note that it was originally planned to be a sea level canal.

[quote]...In 1905, a U.S. engineering panel was commissioned to review the canal design, which still had not been finalised. It recommended to President Roosevelt a sea-level canal, as had been attempted by the French. However, more extensive engineering studies favored a canal using a lock system to raise and lower ships from a large reservoir 85 ft (26 m) above sea level. This would create both the largest dam (Gatun Dam) and the largest man-made lake (Gatun Lake) in the world at that time. The water to refill the locks would be taken from Gatun Lake by opening and closing enormous gates and valves and letting gravity propel the water from the lake. Gatun Lake would connect to the Pacific through the mountains at the Gaillard (Culebra) Cut. Stevens successfully argued the case against the sea-level canal, convincing Roosevelt of the necessity and feasibility of the alternative scheme.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal

Apart from that, however, it IS correct that sea level is different on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the canal for some of the very reasons I've already cited for varying sea levels:

[quote]The sea level at the Pacific side is about 20 cm (8 in) higher than that of the Atlantic side due to differences in ocean conditions such as water densities and weather.[64][/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal#Water_issues
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 30, 2014 09:07PM)
I was wrong. I thank Bob for the enlightenment. I have just spoken to one who knows from working on the Panama Canal as a quantity surveyor, who confirms the difference in level on either side. He also tells me there is also small fluctuating differences in the force of gravity along it. I can't remember his exact words but has something to do with water levels in and on the ground.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 31, 2014 07:44AM)
Fair enough. Frankly, I was unaware of the lake and so I also stand corrected.
Message: Posted by: Tree (Mar 31, 2014 09:35AM)
.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Mar 31, 2014 04:49PM)
[quote]
On Mar 31, 2014, Tree wrote:
.
[/quote]
I've been thinking about your post for a time now, and I don't know if you're wrong or right.
Is that view from a peer reviewed source? ;)
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Mar 31, 2014 06:30PM)
[quote]
On Mar 31, 2014, Ray Tupper. wrote:
[quote]
On Mar 31, 2014, Tree wrote:
.
[/quote]
I've been thinking about your post for a time now, and I don't know if you're wrong or right.
Is that view from a peer reviewed source? ;)
[/quote]

I think it's from a peer-iod reviewed source.

Ron
:-)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 31, 2014 07:04PM)
This sea level and canal discussion, though, really doesn't have much to do with the fact that the global mean sea level has been rising consistently for the last one hundred years. Thermal expansion and the melting of land ice due to global warming are cited as contributing factors.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Mar 31, 2014 10:13PM)
I did find this though;

http://www.quora.com/Geography/Why-is-the-sea-level-constant#
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Mar 31, 2014 10:31PM)
[quote]For at least the last 100 years, sea level has been rising at an average rate of about 1.8 mm (0.1 in) per year.[14] Most of this rise can be attributed to the increase in temperature of the sea and the resulting slight thermal expansion of the upper 500 metres (1,640 feet) of sea water. Additional contributions, as much as one-fourth of the total, come from water sources on land, such as melting snow and glaciers and extraction of groundwater for irrigation and other agricultural and human needs.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level#Recent_changes
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Mar 31, 2014 11:46PM)
I have to ask again what is normal over the billions of years?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Apr 1, 2014 05:25AM)
[quote]
On Apr 1, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I have to ask again what is normal over the billions of years?
[/quote]

http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/basics/past.html
"The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago—that's a very long time ago! It's hard to say exactly what the Earth's daily weather was like in any particular place on any particular day thousands or millions of years ago. But we know a lot about what the Earth's climate was like way back then because of clues that remain in rocks, ice, trees, corals, and fossils."


Ron
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 1, 2014 08:45AM)
Referring to the records we have reveals that that green house gas emission has risen dramatically since the Industrial Revolution and that coincides with the thermal expansion and land ice melting that is resulting in sea level change.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2014 11:58AM)
As compared to what exactly?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2014 12:38PM)
[quote]
On Apr 1, 2014, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On Apr 1, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I have to ask again what is normal over the billions of years?
[/quote]

http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/basics/past.html
"The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago—that's a very long time ago! It's hard to say exactly what the Earth's daily weather was like in any particular place on any particular day thousands or millions of years ago. But we know a lot about what the Earth's climate was like way back then because of clues that remain in rocks, ice, trees, corals, and fossils."


Ron
[/quote]
Yea we "know" the same way we know about dinosaurs. Yes we know of them, we have general ideas (And for pity sake YES they existed millions of years ago! Don't mistake my point please LOL.) about things but in reality we KNOW quite little about them. We have some fantastic educated guesses, but it changes on almost a daily basis.

Same with climate from tree rings. We don't know anything, and what we think we knew, we find out was wrong. This is why all of the DOOMSDAY prophecies are not coming true.

Most of climate science is built on models of the future. With the exception of data from the past 100 years, and the "clues" which are subject to interpretation. Go ahead call me names now, call me a denier and all that. But what you can not say is I am wrong.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 1, 2014 01:26PM)
I won't call you a denier, Danny, as I believe you are a reasonable man. Surely you agree that dumping more and more carbon emissions into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing, regardless of your opinion on the science of climate change.

But, as you've said in the past, the real question is what should be done about it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2014 01:39PM)
Pollution is absolutely bad. Nobody says it is good. (Well nobody I know of.)

Yes what can be done about it, what will it cost to have something done about it, and what will the result be when we have done something about it? Those are the questions.

Also what is the end result being looked for? The idea of not spewing pollution is obviously smart. Being good stewards of the planet we inherited makes sense. I checked, we only have one of them. But what is the "ideal" being looked for? What is the goal? What temp is perfect for the planet and how do we know that is the RIGHT temp for it to be?

See the problem is I am asking sceiencey questions which most (Not you Bob.) try to answer with propaganda and doomsday scenarios and name calling.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Apr 1, 2014 02:17PM)
[quote]
On Apr 1, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:

Also what is the end result being looked for? The idea of not spewing pollution is obviously smart. Being good stewards of the planet we inherited makes sense. I checked, we only have one of them. But what is the "ideal" being looked for? What is the goal? What temp is perfect for the planet and how do we know that is the RIGHT temp for it to be?

See the problem is I am asking sceiencey questions which most (Not you Bob.) try to answer with propaganda and doomsday scenarios and name calling.

[/quote]

The end result is sustainability. which means an eventual end to using fossil fuels. Since they are a finite resource anyway their use will come to an end one way or the other. Wouldn't it be better to do it on our terms?

We need to eventually phase out these resources in favour of sustainanble energy such as solar, wind, geo-thermal, and hopefully someday Fusion. Leaving room of course for alternative energy sources we haven't even thought of yet.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 1, 2014 02:19PM)
Another problem is that there are those on the other side of the spectrum who believe that man's activities have no effect on the planet, and even some who believe that God wouldn't let it happen. And, sadly, there are major fossil fuel companies that are perfectly happy with that, as their main priority is their bottom line, the future of the planet be da***d. (Witness, for example, the poisoning of the water in West Virginia by coal interests protected by politicians with stakes in the company involved.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2014 03:47PM)
What about the political agenda of green energy?

Fact is that yes we evolve to better tech and as we do others fall by the wayside. Called creative destruction. No problem. I am all for renewable reliable energy. But why does the government have to do it? Why is it a political agenda? There is my problem.

Why does one party have to push it down our throats? Green tech isn't there yet. I just think markets sort better than government. Government sure needs to keep watch but to go after industry they don't approve of is hideous behavior.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 1, 2014 04:47PM)
Why do you consider "green energy" to be a political agenda? That, of course, is how big oil and their lobbyists label it. But others just see it as a common sense strategy to preserve the planet.

Do you consider the dumping of poison into rivers by coal plants that have long been protected by their political allies, to be hideous behavior? How about lying about the extent of oil spills? The "market" has done nothing to protect the public and has no motivation to do so since profit is its only bottom line. It is, I believe, a responsibility of government to protect its citizens and the regulation of toxic emissions is part of it.

Sadly, there are many who believe that corporate interests are greater than those of the public and seek to shove their own agendas down the throats of the public in order to preserve and promote those interests, as well as to line the pockets of their shareholders and executive officers.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2014 04:57PM)
Now you are throwing propaganda. NOBODY said it was good for coal companies to pollute. It is not the stance. Governments JOB is to make sure that stuff does not happen. I am all for that. Toxic emissions yea. Changing what is and is not a toxic emission to suit an agenda is wrong.

Tell me the green company agenda like Solyndra was not a straight up kickback and political agenda.

Like I said as soon as government gets involved it is bad. Oil companies and tax breaks are included in things that government needs to STOP.

But again NONE of it will stop. Eventually companies like TESLA (Which has a sports car that ROCKS man!) will come to the forefront and push tech where it needs to go. The rest is just noise.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 1, 2014 05:13PM)
What propaganda? That was my honest opinion and belief. And, from what you wrote, you seem to agree with me in principle.

I'm all for Tesla. But the political machines in many states, including Texas, are doing all in their power to prevent Tesla from selling directly to the public. What is their agenda?

What were you referring to when you suggested that government decides what is and isn't toxic? Is there a non-toxic substance that you feel is being unfairly regulated as part of a political agenda?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2014 05:46PM)
Yea but lets talk TESLA.

States not allowing them to directly sell to the public? HOLY COW does that need to stop and stop now!!! I did not know such a thing. Their sports car has tech in it that is right on the forefront of the future. It is a genuine sports car, and it is the future.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 1, 2014 09:24PM)
The problem is that automobile dealerships have a strong lobbying arm. Since other manufacturers don't sell directly, they don't want Tesla to do it either.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 1, 2014 11:09PM)
Sad. Tesla is an interesting story. Up....down....and just a cool story.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Apr 2, 2014 11:15AM)
Our lifetime here on earth is so miniscule, it's meaningless on the timeline.
Message: Posted by: critter (Apr 2, 2014 11:45AM)
They still make movies about ancient Greeks and Romans. Perhaps not the most factually accurate movies, but people like Leonidas clearly left a lasting impression.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 2, 2014 12:36PM)
Yea good point. Turns out it was far more than just think he 300 Spartans everyone remembers that were there. Not to mention the naval battle which if it didn't happen would have made that stand a complete waste of time
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 2, 2014 03:12PM)
[quote]
On Apr 2, 2014, Dennis Michael wrote:
Our lifetime here on earth is so miniscule, it's meaningless on the timeline.
[/quote]

To any given individual, yes. But it is incontrovertible that the actions people take can create damage that will last FAR beyond their own lifetimes. The view that "It makes no difference because we'll all be dead anyway" is hardly what is meant by "good stewardship."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 2, 2014 04:24PM)
I am all for good stewardship. No doubt. BUT it is also true that LONG after mankind has ceased to exist, the earth and the universe will continue.

The earth has survived MANY species. It can shake us off like a bad cold.

Still man even just the difference we can make in OUR lifetime is extraordinary. Why not?
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Apr 3, 2014 08:29AM)
"Fossil fuels" may not be a finite resource (do some checking). Carbon emissions are not a "pollutant", well that can be argued, but the extremists want it classified as such to further their agenda. The climate change issue is not about pollution control (although it gets included and "clouds" the issue quite often) it's about controlling and regulating all resources relating to power (literally and figuratively) and a vehicle for worldwide unification. The rest is just details and means to an end.

Glen
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 3, 2014 08:35AM)
I think what we're leaving out in this discussion of whether green technology should be government subsidized is the fact that the oil and coal industries have gotten billions and billions of subsidies for many many decades. You can't really talk about a free market under such conditions.

And the Tesla banning is shameful.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 3, 2014 09:49AM)
[quote]
On Apr 3, 2014, GlenD wrote:
"Fossil fuels" may not be a finite resource (do some checking). Carbon emissions are not a "pollutant", well that can be argued, but the extremists want it classified as such to further their agenda. The climate change issue is not about pollution control (although it gets included and "clouds" the issue quite often) it's about controlling and regulating all resources relating to power (literally and figuratively) and a vehicle for worldwide unification. The rest is just details and means to an end.

Glen
[/quote]

Thanks, but science trumps conspiracy theory every time.

If you don't believe that fossil fuels are finite or that carbon emission are a pollutant, I suggest that you do a bit of checking. (An elementary school science class would be a good place to start.)

Do you seriously believe fossil fuels aren't finite? Where do you think they come from? Magic?
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Apr 3, 2014 10:32AM)
That is why I put the term fossil fuel in quotes... The very assumptions surrounding that term are what is at question. I assume you did not do any checking. Do you assume ALL hydrocarbons originate only from old dinosaurs?? Also the "environment" has carbon emissions built into it Bob and they are necessary for all life on the planet! But of course none of this matters to the duped because we are destroying the planet by god and must cease immediately!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 3, 2014 10:50AM)
Words fail me. Wherever did you get the idea that I thought all hydrocarbons originate from old dinosaurs? They come from ALL carbon based life forms, including vegetation, etc. and take millions of years to form. The notion that the supply isn't finite is completely unsupportable either by facts or common sense.

But, yes, carbon dioxide is essential to much life on earth. But in excess it is a toxin. If you believe otherwise, you might as well support legislation to ban automobile emissions controls, catalytic converters and all other pollution control measures. As you know, they're all part of the plot to create a one-world government.

And tell those folks who need to wear face masks due to industrial pollution to throw them away- those gasses are GOOD for them.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 3, 2014 12:23PM)
What about all that pot smoke?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Apr 6, 2014 04:03AM)
Insignificant compared to all the cigarette (pipe/cigar) smoke.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 6, 2014 08:46AM)
Well it all adds up you know Ed. If you want to be a good steward then why would you promote smoke?
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 6, 2014 04:14PM)
Prediction: mankind is going to fart around and do nothing about climate change until it's too late, pretty much because of the crossfire of politically motivated views of the sort that are exhibited on this thread. Eventually the truth will be recognized for what is, because it will be inescapable, but by then it won't matter and we'll be irreparably scr*wed. Sorry to be a pessimist, but I'm coming to the conclusion that mankind in general only acts from selfish short-term interests, and that will be our ultimate undoing. As far as top-of-the-foodchain runs go, ours will be only a tiny fraction of what the dinosaurs had. As a species, we're too clever and calculating for our own good, albeit in a rather delusional and ignorant way.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 6, 2014 04:36PM)
I'm afraid you may be right.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 6, 2014 04:43PM)
Indeed, I can't see these selfish ***s giving up their pot even to save the world.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 6, 2014 08:09PM)
NOBODY has proven what we can do that will change things and how much it will change things.?

Here is where I start to get off the train. When people exaggerate to make it seem doomsday when it clearly is NOT. Then they have a justification for such actions. http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advocates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics/

Someone explain to me why it is ok to lie about things just to create awareness? Anyone wonder why the debate is stalled?

I have not researched all of this site, this article or what not. I am sure our very own alarmists here will claim this is as meaningless as the emails saying they need to hide the decline. But it DOES happen.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 6, 2014 08:26PM)
How can climate change possibly be Doomsday when everyone knows that Obamacare is Doomsday?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 6, 2014 09:59PM)
You make a flippant remark, but a good point.

Each side speaks in terms of DOOMSDAY when the other side makes a point. Rational discussion has vanished from the landscape. The other side has to be either evil or stupid.

THAT is the problem.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 7, 2014 12:06AM)
With all due respect, "discussion" - rational or otherwise - has absolutely no bearing on the problem, which is whether or not human-accelerated climate change is a fact. The reality or non-existence of that phenomenon is unchanged by any sort of discussion, no matter how clever.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 7, 2014 12:45AM)
It may have no bearing on the "problem" but it has an absolute bearing on the way it is perceived, and when and IF anything is ever done about it. Without discussion nothing will ever happen.

I fully comprehend that the existence of any problem real or perceived does not change with discussion. Only what will be done about it. Which was my point. With all due respect
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 7, 2014 01:48AM)
Understand what you're saying, DannyDoyle, but ultimately we each need to decide where we stand on the basic issue based on the science. We can't let our position be dictated by the politics or rhetoric of any of the various factions. If we do eventually arrive at a general consensus that human-accelerated climate change is real, then we can more effectively discuss options concerning how to deal with it. Problem is, we're not really there yet, and I personally doubt that we will be until the evidence is overwhelming and it's too late in the game to make much of a difference.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 7, 2014 06:19AM)
If you're going to make it through the winter, you're going to need heat
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 7, 2014 12:13PM)
[quote]
On Apr 7, 2014, MaxfieldsMagic wrote:
Understand what you're saying, DannyDoyle, but ultimately we each need to decide where we stand on the basic issue based on the science. We can't let our position be dictated by the politics or rhetoric of any of the various factions. If we do eventually arrive at a general consensus that human-accelerated climate change is real, then we can more effectively discuss options concerning how to deal with it. Problem is, we're not really there yet, and I personally doubt that we will be until the evidence is overwhelming and it's too late in the game to make much of a difference.
[/quote]

According to many predictions we have passed that point already. Books that claim by the year 2000 countries like England would cease to exist! Yet despite their persistence of existing nobody ever walks back the doomsday scenarios. Still these books are required reading.

All I am saying is that perhaps if the rhetoric got dialed back and we dealt with the actual science and not the politics of it we would have a better chance of things being better.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 7, 2014 06:44PM)
Amen.

I remember that in the early 1970's they told us that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000. Obviously, that didn't happen. But does that mean that we now have a limitless supply of oil - a scarce resource that takes millions of years to produce? Of course not. It just means that the dates were wrong.

Also in the early 1970's, they warned us about human accelerated climate change when teaching the greenhouse effect. There was even a movie about it - Soylent Green (1973), based on the novel "Make Room! Make Room!" (1966). Maybe I don't think it's a controversial theory because that's how I learned it as a kid, which kind of shapes your view of the world.

Anyway, it's a bit surreal to see that people are still debating the underlying science, as my hair turns grey and technology seems to have advanced in all other areas. Back in the 1970's, though, it was more of a scientific issue. Now it seems to be almost entirely political. People who believe in human accelerated climate change are labeled as "liberal," and those who don't are "conservative." Meaningless labels that have no bearing on the facts.

]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 7, 2014 07:31PM)
The debate has been co opted by political parties.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 8, 2014 02:25AM)
Who is it you hand control of the resorces too?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 8, 2014 07:00AM)
[quote]Who is it you hand control of the resources to?[/quote]
That's the relevant issue. Imagine a world where local communities could control their own resources. Development of solar energy sources and the like makes that more possible.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 8, 2014 07:27AM)
The aim of warmer scam is to replace the capitalist system with a socialist one. It is simply a power grab. The banksters will own and control all resources on the planet and operate it like a business which they own. The science of it is simply a load of BS. Go and look at the Communist Green Left weekly, or any other communist party paper as it happens.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/search/apachesolr_search/climate
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Apr 8, 2014 12:03PM)
"human accelerated climate change" doesn't even make sense! What exactly is THAT ??? So now our use of natural resources is responsible for everything that the natural climate does? Because it does change, you know... It has done so since the beginning of time as well, without any help from us humans. Oil does not take millions of years to form naturally and has been produced within hours in labs. So much misinformation makes real understanding impossible.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 8, 2014 08:02PM)
[quote]
On Apr 8, 2014, GlenD wrote:
"human accelerated climate change" doesn't even make sense! What exactly is THAT ??? So now our use of natural resources is responsible for everything that the natural climate does? Because it does change, you know... [/quote]

Yes, it does. But read the words again. It's all in plain English. No one is debating that the world's climate changes over long periods of time, the debate is whether we've sped up the cycle considerably by dumping unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The fact is that humans were never present for any of the peaks or valleys in the past, and there's no guarantee that we can survive them in the future. But then, you already know that if you've been paying any attention at all.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 8, 2014 08:12PM)
[quote]
On Apr 8, 2014, GlenD wrote:
Oil does not take millions of years to form naturally and has been produced within hours in labs. So much misinformation makes real understanding impossible.
[/quote]

Really. First of all (1) yes it does, and (2) are you suggesting that we have a cost effective way of producing sufficient quantities of cheap oil in labs, but no one has thought to implement that to solve the energy crisis? You must be smarter than anyone in the energy industry. Perhaps you should volunteer your services. None of that, however, has any bearing on whether CO2 emmissions are dramatically accelerating climate change. I emphatically agree with your last sentence, however.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 8, 2014 08:20PM)
Whether oil can be produced in a lab has NO relevance whatsoever to how long it takes to form naturally.

But if you believe that the earth is no more than five or six thousand years old, I can understand how millions of years can cause some confusion.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 8, 2014 10:05PM)
Temperatures have warmed a fraction of degree 0.85ºC since 1880, which is when Chief Sitting Bull on the war path. Wow what a considerably unprecedented amount eh. Quick phone the communist green left weekly boys to see what resources they want to control before we all fry!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 9, 2014 03:42AM)
Use Google, tommy, and look up some current pictures of the glaciers in Greenland and the polar ice cap. Then look up some pictures from fifty or so years ago.

Where did the ice go?

If you're actually interested in facts (including a graph of actual land/sea temperature changes since 1880) you might want to read the following, together with the cited source material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_ocean
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 04:35AM)
As plants, animals, and humans benefit from higher temperatures and CO2-enriched air, I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 05:18AM)
Where did the ice go?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/01/glacier-thief-arrested-ice-cubes
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 05:45AM)
It looks like the National Science Foundation has been handing out grants for some unorthodox research projects, according to House Republicans.

This includes $700,000 in funding for a climate change musical.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/03/feds-spent-700000-on-a-climate-change-musical/

Maybe magicians could we could get grants, if they could do climate change magic routines.

I am sure they could blow a bit of co2 on something and mysteriously change it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 9, 2014 06:26AM)
Amazing how some can belittle a worthwhile science education project. But that's House Republicans and science deniers for you. (I guarantee they wouldn't have objected if the NAS provided funding for a play promoting creationism.)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 06:48AM)
I am for some environmental changes. We have to get back to basics. Making robbery and murder legal for a year might thin out the traffic and may the best man win.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 9, 2014 07:04AM)
[quote]
On Apr 8, 2014, tommy wrote:
The aim of warmer scam is to replace the capitalist system with a socialist one. It is simply a power grab. [b]The banksters will own and control all resources on the planet and operate it like a business which they own. [/b]
[/quote]
Really, tommy, I'm surprised at you. I would have thought that you, of all Café-ers, would know that [i]the banksters already own and control all resources on the planet[/i]. The nuclear, oil, and gas industries are already highly centralized with absolutely no chance of becoming de-centralized. The small hope of independence lies in technologies like solar which still have some possibility to grow in a de-centralized context. From a political standpoint that means replacing authoritarian and market-based ideologies with democratic and people-based ideologies.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 09:10AM)
The things which you mention there are not all. If own or control anything at all then you will not after the extraordinary characters take control. As they take us through this century of change so it look like Lenin has took over. If you don't go along with it you will end up in the Gulag. IPCC, is is a government-sponsored, communist politically motivated group, predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N,.resolution. As its only 2014 now we are about 14% there. Things for the peasants are good as you will see, as it is going get worse as we move on. What is real is only the action, as opposed to your inner and outer world.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 9, 2014 09:28AM)
I think I need a translation of your above post into something resembling English, but until then...just what oil, nuclear, and gas resources do you own, that you are so afraid of having them taken away from you?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 09:43AM)
You own the gas, oil and nuclear power that you pay for and use. When they tell you that you can't and cut you off, then you will know how to read the meaning of control and ownership.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 10:26AM)
When they tell you how much you can eat, drink and other things which you can or can not do, that is real control. Controlling the action is owning reality. They don't have to own anything, when they can make the rules regarding the action, telling you what can and or not do. They can designate vast area as a nature reserves and tell you that you can not go it when they can make the rules. Rules cost nothing and land nothing, it is action that matters. It's power. Man's activity is causing warming, we must control it! It gives them everything. Get it?
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Apr 9, 2014 10:40AM)
Exactly what about the climate has "accelerated"? It changes, as evidenced by the seasons etc, now as it always has. How is the flat lining or drop-off in global temperatures, during the last 10-15 years, possible given that carbon emissions continue to increase over that same time? This should not be the case and that is one example of why we need to be cautious and restrained from enacting doomsday driven legislation/regulations. Sun spot activity has major influence on the climate and there is nothing we can do about that. The climate here is affected by many variables that are also out of our ability to control and is so complex we still cannot accurately model it with the highest powered computers that are now available. Our little bit of additional carbon emissions really have very little impact and there is no link to temperature yet discovered (that consistently proves out). Greenies... take a chill pill and let continued education in this field occur before strangling all of us with your frikkin agenda and quest for power! TYVM.

Glen
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Apr 9, 2014 10:47AM)
Some will just never "get it' I guess.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 9, 2014 11:42AM)
[quote]
On Apr 9, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Use Google, tommy, and look up some current pictures of the glaciers in Greenland and the polar ice cap. Then look up some pictures from fifty or so years ago.

Where did the ice go?

If you're actually interested in facts (including a graph of actual land/sea temperature changes since 1880) you might want to read the following, together with the cited source material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_ocean
[/quote]

Ok 1880. Not even 200 years and we claim to know what is "NORMAL" in the face of BILLIONS of years?

Again what is "normal"? What exact temperature are we going for and how do we know that is "normal"?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 12:04PM)
Study after study has revealed that warming produces more benefits than harms for a wide range of plants and animals and, not insignificantly, humans as well. But really, who does not know that c02 is good for plant life? Seems what greens want not green but red and white. They ought change their name to the blood on ice party as all they call for is ice and death. Mind you am with them with the death issue as the population certainly cold do with a good culling. Since 1880 there has been a fraction of one according to NASA a fraction of which man made. Perhaps you should read the science Bob before you hand over control to the green left weekly boys on swallowing their scaremongering propaganda over a fraction of one degree warming since Chief Sitting Bull was on the warpath.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Apr 9, 2014 06:10PM)
CFCs and the Ozone hole should be a sober reminder to everyone that man can, and does, affect the environment on a global scale.

Ron
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 9, 2014 06:32PM)
[quote]
On Apr 9, 2014, tommy wrote:
You own the gas, oil and nuclear power that you pay for and use.
[/quote]
Nonsense I own none of those resources, anymore than I own Microsoft because I have a computer. If they decide to cut me off, or raise the price to whatever they like, I'm screwed.

You think that because the oligarchs are wearing sweatshirts that say "Capitalist," they are any more benign than oligarchs who wear sweatshirts that say "Socialist"? You're willing to let the Capitalists do anything because they have, in your mind, a prettier uniform?

The one slim chance left is to set up a parallel structure not dependent on them. Solar and the like are the slim chance we have.

Now in a way I understand your replies. Because after all this thread is supposed to be about global warming and all that, and you have misgivings about how each side manipulates the public for a given outcome. Granted. But the greatest danger is not whether there will be global warming or conversely no global warming. The greatest danger is right here, right now--the means of production are in the hands of a few people who care absolutely nothing about the rest of us.

The cure, I believe, is democracy.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 9, 2014 06:41PM)
Tommy seems to believe that excess CO2 is good for you.

Try breathing in a plastic bag for a while. See how long it takes before you turn blue.

Then try the same experiment with the equally beneficial carbon monoxide that comes from your tailpipe.

RS- CFCs and the Ozone layer are something the science deniers would prefer to forget about, as they conclusively disprove the myth that man's activities cannot affect the environment.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 07:33PM)
I like the way these guys tell you what you think when you don't.

You own the gas, oil and nuclear power that you pay for and use. Just like the food you buy and eat. As I said it is the action that is real and not the stuff or what is in your mind. Real ownership is about control. You can buy a house and what makes it yours is the control of action. It would not be your house if people could just walk in and get into your bed would it? We are taking about total control of all action. “All” means what it says: In the House Loads here an hereditary peer has just asked the government if it takes into account flatulence caused by baked beans in its climate-change calculations. "The noble lord of course does actually raise a very important point, which is we do need to moderate our behaviour." said climate change minister Baroness Verma. Do you understand what all means now? All your behaviour, your actions, will be moderated by the moderators with their calculators. The UN will give the orders as to what you can eat, where you can or not go and all what you do. Orders, which the UN will get from the Rockefeller Club of Rome, who came up with the idea of the global warming scam. It means they will own nothing and control everything. Under the guise of saving the planet. Global control of all the action, which will make them undisputed masters of the world. It is very simple. These extraordinary personalties are the ones who gave us the Soviet Story. We are taking about the first global revolution. Don't forget there is always a reign of terror in these revolutions. In their book, The First Global Revolution, they tell us they want to reduce the world population by billions. This is the century of change they told us. We will see this century a reign of terror, which will make the Soviet Story look like a picnic. They will bring in food and water shortages and the like. We are not simply talking about the global warming scam, that is a small part of the power grab which is going on. It can snow from now until the cows come home and they will continue with their agenda regardless. The so called science is propaganda, that is all it is. You can't prove it right nor wrong. So it goes on and on as they take control of the action. Use your own head and stick it out of widow and look at the weather and tell me, does it really look as bad as they say? Disinformation or propaganda often succeeds because so many groups find that it serves their agendas as well as the agenda of the dis-informers. i.e. The Jews are cause of our problem and you can get rid of them and take over their business's. So the group who want the business's, go along with the idea that the Jews are cause of our problem, as there is something in it for them. If the fight on global warming brings in socialism then the socialists go with it. And so on. So is one way how it works but it works in may other ways also. Jobs, money, business, can depend on going along with disinformation. People go along to get along and like being part of the group. The powers that be are experts at it. They have been studying it for ever. We the people ain't, as we spend our time trying to make a living and looking after our families etcetera. You can own and controll things under the capilist sytem but not under communism. There the elite control it all. Including your farts.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 9, 2014 08:06PM)
[quote]You can own and control things under the capitalist system but not under communism.[/quote]

You neither own nor control the distribution of any energy source *right here and now* except for your own flatulence. And not even you, tommy, prodigious as that output may be, can live on that. You are at their mercy, son.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 9, 2014 08:17PM)
Your words, Tommy, not mine:

[quote]Study after study has revealed that warming produces more benefits than harms for a wide range of plants and animals and, not insignificantly, humans as well. But really, who does not know that c02 is good for plant life?[/quote]

Ergo, tommy thinks that increased CO2 levels are a good thing.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 9, 2014 09:09PM)
Correct! Rising co2 has caused no harm to anyone and has net benefits to plants, including important food crops which benefits animals and human health as a result.. The greenery loves human farts and can't get enough of them but doesn't like ice at all. Who cares what happens to ice? You want hope we don't get an ice age again but we will.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 9, 2014 11:44PM)
Dear Lord. (Fox News) x (tinfoil hat/black helicopter conspiracy theory) + (willful denial x political ideology squared) = Tommy's worldview. And amazingly, there are enough Tommys to populate a good portion of the American south and midwest, effectively blocking all political progress on this issue. Which is why we're probably scr*wed. Oh well. Drill, baby, drill, and please pass the Exxon/Mobile stock.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 10, 2014 09:26AM)
As the number of the population rises so will the co2 levels and so will plants grow more to feed the number. So if warmers cut the co2 that at least will thin the traffic by starving the people to death.

I don't agree Max there is enough to effectively block all your communist political progress on this issue.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Apr 10, 2014 05:41PM)
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that someone thinks that scientists agree on global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it in order to move an agenda. Blocking all political progress on this would be the best thing that could happen. Thank goodness for the voice of reason ( FOX ).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 10, 2014 08:56PM)
Good Lord. At least try to do a bit of research.

And I love the way deniers use the word "agenda" as a pejorative. An agenda is simply a plan. Plans are good things. It's hidden plans, or secret agendas that are the problem - like trying to secretly advance the interests of oil companies by using stooges like FOX and the Heritage Foundation to delude the scientifically challenged.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 10, 2014 11:59PM)
Yea Bob secret agendas are not a good thing to bring up when talking of the Green movement LOL.

I still want to know what a "normal" temperature for the earth is and how we get to it and what it will cost.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2014 08:01AM)
If three quarters of the fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground, and the fossil fuels we do use must be utilized sparingly and responsibly, then the price of fossil fuel will increase when they do that, it seems to me. Bicycles would be a good business to get into, as no one but the wealthy will be able to afford the price. So that would save money as you could get rid of your cars and either Bicycle or walk to work, if there is any work left after they do this. That would be good though as we could do nothing but ride about on bikes having fun and being happy. Who will feed us and so on? Well they could give you food stamps, well not give as such but rather we would have to work for them. So we could all walk or cycle to work camps. You would not be able to use your food stamps for baked beans of course. So it would not cost you anything but rather save you money. So long as it saves you money who cares what is normal?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 11, 2014 08:25AM)
Mr Speaker, I waive simultaneous translation.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2014 08:41AM)
Sir, kindly address me as "Good Lord" as the other good fellows do.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2014 08:41AM)
Hmmm I think one the keys on my keybord is faulty.

There is also a growing realization that oil is not the only fuel for mobility, and that it can be used more efficiently. Market share of electric and hybrid vehicles continues to grow, transit ridership is up and bike shares are everywhere.

Just testing.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 11, 2014 09:26AM)
[quote]
On Apr 10, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yea Bob secret agendas are not a good thing to bring up when talking of the Green movement LOL.

I still want to know what a "normal" temperature for the earth is and how we get to it and what it will cost.
[/quote]

The "agenda" of the Green Movement is simply to preserve and protect the planet. The secret agenda of the denialists is to protect the financial interests of oil companies.

There is no "normal" temperature for the planet. There are simply averages. Those averages are rising as is sea level and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The effects of this rise are already apparent if one simply looks at the arctic ice pack and the glaciers in Greenland.

Coastal sea levels, particularly in the Mid Atlantic region, are rising more quickly and this is directly attributable to thermal expansion.

What to do about it? The first priority is to reduce the amount of unregulated carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

But since political interests are blocking this, it is unlikely that anything will be done.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Apr 11, 2014 09:32AM)
[quote]
On Apr 9, 2014, GlenD wrote:
Greenies... take a chill pill and let continued education in this field occur before strangling all of us with your frikkin agenda and quest for power! TYVM.

Glen
[/quote]

Glen, would you give the same advice to the oil companies?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2014 09:49AM)
What do think to this U.N. climate chief?

U.N. climate chief: Communism best method of dealing with global warming


January 15, 2014

For years, conservatives have said that radical environmentalism is little more than a front for a move to Communist tyranny. That assertion seems to have been proven with comments made by Christiana Figueres, climate chief for the United Nations, who said Communism is the best model for fighting global warming, the Daily Caller reported Wednesday.

According to Figueres, China, the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide, is “doing it right,” even though it has major pollution problems of its own.

The reason, she explained, is that democracy is no good at handling something like global warming, with different parties arguing over policy. In fact, she said, political differences like those in the U.S. Congress, are "very detrimental" to solving the issue.

The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can simply dictate policy with no debate. Those who disagree can simply be tossed into prison or suffer a worse fate.

“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

"The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices," the Daily Caller added. Of course, that's how things work in a dictatorship with one-party rule. Democrats who have clamored for Obama to rule like a dictator may like the idea of a single-party system in America where the ruling party can simply issue edicts, but the American people have made it clear they will not accept such an arrangement, nor are they likely to adopt the Communist Chinese model.

The Daily Caller also observed that Communism was responsible for the deaths of about 94 million people in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe in the 20th century.

"China alone was responsible for 65 million of those deaths under communist rule," the Daily Caller said.

Yet this is the model the U.N. says the world should adopt.

The reason, Michael Bastasch said, is that environmentalists hail the Chinese for being a "leader" in renewable energy.

"The country set a goal of getting 15 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020," Bastach said.

In 2012, China received nine percent of its power from renewable resources, while the United States got 11 percent of its power from renewable resources in the same year.

Nevertheless, the U.N. climate chief maintains that Communism is the model the U.S. should follow.

The Daily Caller also said that both China and the former Soviet Union have deplorable records with regards to air quality.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that about “1.2 million people died prematurely in China in 2010 as a result of air pollution” and Chinese government figures show that “lung cancer is now the leading cause of death from malignant tumors. Many of those dying are nonsmokers.”

In 2008, Warner Todd Huston observed that the real goal of the radical environmental movement is the destruction of capitalism and an end to personal freedom.

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-n-climate-chief-communism-best-method-of-dealing-with-global-warming
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2014 10:00AM)
"We need a revolution" Christiana Figueres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qRT7Hl7rpY
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Apr 11, 2014 10:08AM)
Our desire to consume any and everything of perceivable value – to extract every precious stone, every ounce of metal, every drop of oil, every tuna in the ocean, every rhinoceros in the bush – knows no bounds. We live in a world dominated by greed.

Desmond Tutu

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/10/divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change-keystone-xl
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 11, 2014 10:20AM)
Too bad your keyboard is still not working, tommy. Tell is when it stops typing by itself.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2014 10:21AM)
Say no more, so what we need is a dictatorship to save the planet? Say no more. Say no more. Nudge nudge. Wink wink.

And what does our little friend Mr Rockefeller think of China as the model? Well lets go back to see what he said in 1973, which was the same year he set up the Club of Rome which came up with the idea of global warming to fit the bill.

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/q5vfgvfr4au12m/images/1-a3f7b66bb2.jpg

Too bad you can't speak Chinese Landmark as your pupils will need to learn it.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2014 10:55AM)
So where is your hero Snowden today? Is he in Russia or back in Hell? That darned illusive show and tell.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 11, 2014 11:00AM)
You must have missed the news. China and Russia have been operating on a capitalist model for years now.

For more info about Snowden, check the thread in this section. I posted something there recently. You say you are anti-authoritarian, yet support the authoritarians knee-jerk every time.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 11, 2014 11:23AM)
Bob there is an agenda from folks like Al Gore. He is heavily invested in green tech. Many have a vested interest. Many in the movement have an agenda against capitalism. don't play naive Bob. It does not fit you. You are way too informed.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 11, 2014 12:20PM)
Please provide some evidence of their so-called agenda against capitalism. What most oppose is unregulated capitalism run amok to the detriment of all but the top one percent.

And I wonder why so many arr so naive that they refuse to see the hidden agenda of big oil to maximize its profits, the future of the planet be da**ed
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Apr 11, 2014 12:32PM)
I dream of unregulated capitalism.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 11, 2014 12:49PM)
Why?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 11, 2014 01:02PM)
[quote]
On Apr 11, 2014, silvercup wrote:
I dream of unregulated capitalism.
[/quote]

Ah, yes, those "wonderful" days of the robber barons, the Shirtwaist factory fire, child labor, the crash of 1929, rampant pollution and destruction of the environment.

Everything that is repugnant to today's society.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Apr 11, 2014 01:08PM)
Screw today's society.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2014 01:09PM)
Vladimir Lenin described the economy of Russia as state capitalism. The Rockefeller and the Rothschild and their secret agents have worked with Russians and China, since the 1880's, that is when the temperatures was a fraction of one degree cooler incidentally. China is a slave camp, where the one percent own 70% of the wealth. At the end of this global revolution neither the 1% nor the 99% will own anything at all. It will all be controlled by Rothschild & Co. The state will be the UN, which the Rockefeller and the Rothschild control. As for spying, they will continue to spy on you, whether you like or not. In fact you will be lucky to be alive to be spied on. One of their main aims is reducing the population on a grand scale and they will bring in food and water shortages to fit the bill. Each country may be given a ration of stuff and you will have to make it last or die. The climate will carry on changing anyhow. All this will be regardless of what you believe is right or wrong and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You can vote left right or centre or whatever and the plan, which is a business plan, will proceed. In the meantime enjoy the weather. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 11, 2014 01:14PM)
[quote]
On Apr 11, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Please provide some evidence of their so-called agenda against capitalism. What most oppose is unregulated capitalism run amok to the detriment of all but the top one percent.

And I wonder why so many arr so naive that they refuse to see the hidden agenda of big oil to maximize its profits, the future of the planet be da**ed
[/quote]

Are you telling me that there is NOBODY in the environmental movement that has an agenda against capitalism? Seriously?

And I for one have never said big companies do not have an agenda.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 11, 2014 01:45PM)
I know you didn't, Danny.
The so-called "agenda" is against unregulated capitalism. OF COURSE you'll always be able to find people who are opposed to capitalism, but it is not a hallmark, by any stretch of the imagination, of the so-called Green movement. (Except in the minds of the hard core conspiracy theorists who continue to believe that environmental protection is simply a cover for a plot to take over the world.

And you and I know that's not true. Our plan for world domination has nothing to do with politics. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 11, 2014 02:17PM)
I am pointing out that regardless of how many people of good intention may be involved, or what it started as, this green movement is now being hijacked by extremists. It is people who think it is ok to exaggerate in order to scare people. It is people with an agenda that is far more involved than just saving the planet.

I am saying that the other side is also being used in a proxy fight in order to further company agendas. The science is being put to the background and the politics is being put to the foreground and the earth is losing the battle.

Each side is being manipulated and used as useful idiots. When it is really sad. The agenda of having a clean planet with renewable energy seems pretty politic free to my mind. As far as an agenda that is a pretty good one if you ask me. But once you have each side just arguing about it then the lies happen and the exaggerations happen and then you put in political fodder and you have a cocktail for ZERO being done. Which again is sad.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 11, 2014 07:00PM)
The problem is that the agenda you feel to be a good one (having a clean plant with renewable energy) is exactly what the the oil companies, their lobbyists, and their Koch brothers financed politicians and "research" groups, vehemently oppose.

The extremism is hardly equal on both sides.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 11, 2014 08:16PM)
OH it is very close Bob. You just over look it when you sort of agree with the side that the agenda happens to be on.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 12, 2014 12:25AM)
Yes. One side does it, the other side does it. Everything is equal. The important thing is to point out who is being an extremist - if we can do that effectively, we win the Internet. Cynical arguments are much more important than the reality of action.

Meanwhile, we continue to dump unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and all of the white noise about capitalism versus socialism amounts to nothing beyond delusional excuses for inaction as we poison the planet. And ultimately, that's how we will be judged. A do-nothing society that thought itself so smart.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 12, 2014 12:47AM)
Meanwhile, we continue to dump unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere: which is good.

The monetary benefits conferred by atmospheric CO2 enrichment on global crop production amounts to a total sum of $3.5 trillion over the 50-year period 1961-2011.

Craig Idso, an expert on the fertilization effects of elevated CO2 levels on various plant species, has done a new study of the positive externality (unintended economic consequence) of increasing CO2.


In the 50 year period, 1961-2011, he estimates that there has been a $3.5trillion benefit resulting from increased agricultural productivity. The projected benefits in the coming decades are even larger.

Egad! How could any by-product of human activity possibly be good? That sure wasn’t what I was taught in school!

http://www.thegwpf.org/social-benefit-co2-3-5-trillion-agricultural-productivity/
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 13, 2014 12:10PM)
Maybe we should change the title of this thread from "Scientists agree on Global Warming" to "Scientists agree to assist the socialist takeover by accurately reporting their data."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 13, 2014 12:51PM)
Maybe tommy should look into the toxic properties of excess CO2 by trying out the plastic bag experiment I mentioned earlier on a fellow science denier. (He'll turn blue, though, not green.)

I can't believe anyone can possibly argue that excess carbon emissions are a good thing. But, then again, the things some people here believe are often beyond rational understanding.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 13, 2014 01:06PM)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

- Upton Sinclair

I'd say that pretty much sums up the "doubts" of the current energy industry, and by extension (through campaign contributions) most Republicans. It's willful denial based on self interest and financially motivated corruption, pure and simple. If they can make environmental concern sound like a socialist plot, so much the better - "real Americans" hate socialism, you know. As a corollary, most right-wing radio and broadcast news feels the need to advocate for anything that benefits Republicans and corporations, hence their position. If Exxon and the Republicans changed their position on the issue, Limbaugh and Fox would do a 180 in a jiffy. Where are the real Republican leaders, like Teddy Roosevelt, who unabashedly embraced conservation - wisely interpreting it as "conservative" in the truest sense - or even the much-maligned Richard Nixon, who established the EPA and signed the Clean Air Act?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 13, 2014 01:12PM)
Many people choose to forget that Republican Teddy Roosevelt was basically the founder of the progressive movement.

And, yes, those who dream of unregulated capitalism really ought to read Upton Sinclair.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 13, 2014 01:23PM)
Maybe Bob should stick his head under water and argue that water kills and so we should get rid of it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 13, 2014 01:40PM)
If we filled our atmosphere with water instead of air, water would kill.

Your refusal to accept that excess carbon emissions are toxic is ridiculous.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 13, 2014 03:50PM)
Those are your words not mine.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Apr 14, 2014 10:31AM)
Http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/another-prominent-scientist-dissents-fmr-nasa-scientist-dr-les-woodcock-laughs-at-global-warming-top-prof-declares-global-warming-is-nonsense/

I am sure there is something to discredit him too but interesting I don't think he is a member of the Heritage Foundation of a big oil stooge...Arent those the only reasons/explanations for "deniers"? hmmm will wait to see what the hoaxers come up with to discredit this scientist.

Glen
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 14, 2014 10:54AM)
Dr. Woodcock declared there was 'professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world' when it comes to man-made climate change claims.  'The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis' --  water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is, is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04%'

'When I ask the former NASA scientist about ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, he laughs.'


:)
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 16, 2014 08:56PM)
Well, I really hope you guys are right, and this whole Climate Change thing is a scam. That would really beat the alternative, wouldn't it? Don't believe it for a second, but I genuinely hope to be proven wrong. Thing is, it seems wisest to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. And BTW, what's the worst that could happen if we achieve energy independence from fossil fuels and coal? Less reliance on third world countries ruled by hateful theocracies? Technological advancements? Cleaner air? Maybe lower costs? None of that sounds bad, does it, even f it takes a left-wing conspiracy to push us in that direction.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 16, 2014 09:45PM)
I agree with you Maxfield, but this thread has become pointless. The deniers here are as immune to reason as they are to science.

But for those who think that excess carbon dioxide isn't a problem, what about other carbon emissions. CO2 is not the only one, you know. How much carbon monoxide is acceptable to you, tommy. Or is that good for you too?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 17, 2014 12:01AM)
PLEASE do not lump me in with conspiracy theorists. I think most people at least on the mass level are people of conscious. Manipulated yes but still not a conspiracy.

You say prepare for the worst. Here is where it gets tricky. What do you think needs to be done to prepare. Carbon tax? Government intervention and making it so oil companies can't operate? What do you consider reasonable things to be done to "prepare for the worst"?

I ask because ALL of the things proposed by the environmentalists will have SOME sort of economic impact. I am not claiming disaster or screaming the sky is falling, but there WILL be an impact. Do you not think it reasonable to consider this impact prior to just wading in and doing all sorts of things we do not even know the result of?

Sorry but this is how I view things. Not a denier by any means, but a pragmatic viewpoint.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 17, 2014 03:58AM)
As I said Bob your are not mine. Rather than quote what I have actually said you misinterpret them and try to put them into mouth and them call ridiculous. It seems you believe you read peoples minds for reason. What I think and shave actually aid is that are net benefits to rising levels of CO2.
What part of “net benefits” you don't you grasp? When I explain some of benefits of it you come out with the ridiculous state statement that if put a plastic bag over your head you die as if I don't know that and think you will not. Net benefits means there some downsides to it and putting a plastic bag over your head is obviously one of them. As CO2 levels rise so does plant life which feed the growing number of people and animals. So there is balancing act going on in mother nature. The alarmists only look at the down side of it. This here more or less explains my position:

Benefits to Humans

Far from being a pollutant, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will never directly harm human health, but will indirectly benefit humans in a number of ways. Chief among these benefits is global food security. People must have sufficient food, simply to sustain themselves; and the rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that has occurred since the inception of the Industrial Revolution (an increase of approximately 100 ppm) has done wonders for humanity in this regard. And, it will continue to work wonders in helping us meet the rising food consumption needs of a larger, future population.

In addition to increasing the quantity of food available for human consumption, the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is also increasing the quality of the foods we eat. It significantly increases the quantity and potency of the many beneficial substances found in their tissues (such as the vitamin C concentration of citrus fruit), which ultimately make their way onto our dinner tables and into many of the medicines we take, improving our health and helping us better contend with the multitude of diseases and other maladies that regularly afflict us. In just one species of spider lily, for example, enriching the air with CO2 has led to the production of higher concentrations of several substances that have been demonstrated to be effective in fighting a number of human maladies, including leukemia, ovary sarcoma, melanoma, and brain, colon, lung and renal cancers, as well as Japanese encephalitis and yellow, dengue, Punta Tora and Rift Valley fevers.

To learn more, click on one of the categories below

Future Increases in CO2 Will Not Produce Any Direct Adverse Health Effects

Historical Increases in CO2 Have Increased the Planet's Food Supply

Future Increases in CO2 Will Further Increase the Planet's Food Supply



Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Enhance Health-Promoting Properties of Foods

CO2-Enriched Air Improves Plant Medicinal Properties.



** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).


http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=252
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 17, 2014 04:06AM)
Http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 17, 2014 06:15AM)
It's hard to weigh net benefits globally. If I get more vegetation because of some change in climate whether caused by humans or not, (resulting in me and my kin living longer), while you get more tsunamis (resulting in the short lives of you and your kin), is there a net benefit? As usual, it's generally helpful to ask, Who benefits? and not assume that change affects us all in the same way.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Apr 17, 2014 07:12AM)
Seriously, 26 pages on Global Warming.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 17, 2014 07:38AM)
[quote]On Apr 17, 2014, Dennis Michael wrote:
Seriously, 26 pages on Global Warming. [/quote]
You probably could double the count if you had asked whether you wanted a red coffin or a blue coffin.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 17, 2014 08:29AM)
I see tommy remains fixated on the idea that all carbon emissions are CO2 and that they are beneficial.

Like I said, some remain immune to science and reason.

Leave your car running in a closed garage for a while and tell me how good it is for the atmosphere in the garage.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 17, 2014 09:32AM)
Every time we burn fossil fuels such as gas, coal or oil, carbon dioxide, that is CO2, is released into the atmosphere. In a natural carbon cycle, carbon dioxide is re-absorbed by plants and trees. What other “carbon” emissions are you talking about Bob?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 17, 2014 10:27AM)
The question as I see it tommy, is why are you supporting technology the Rockefellers control ?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 17, 2014 11:10AM)
I am not as I see it but me and the Rockefeller are both out for population control and our only difference lies is in who we should kill.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 17, 2014 11:15AM)
[quote]On Apr 17, 2014, tommy wrote:
Every time we burn fossil fuels such as gas, coal or oil, carbon dioxide, that is CO2, is released into the atmosphere. In a natural carbon cycle, carbon dioxide is re-absorbed by plants and trees. What other “carbon” emissions are you talking about Bob? [/quote]


Where did you get the idea that we're only talking about CO2? (Even though CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and is one of the primary greenhouse gases.)

[quote]A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F).[2][3][4]

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750), the burning of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of native forests has contributed to a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 to 392.6 parts per million (ppm) in 2012.[5][6] This increase has occurred despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions by various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle.[7][8] Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (i.e., emissions produced by human activities) come from combustion of carbon-based fuels, principally wood, coal, oil, and natural gas.[9] Under ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, available Earth System Models project that the Earth's surface temperature could exceed historical analogs as early as 2047 affecting most ecosystems on Earth and the livelihoods of over 3 billion people worldwide.[10] Greenhouse gases also trigger ocean bio-geochemical changes with broad ramifications in marine systems.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 17, 2014 11:28AM)
Where is your answer to my question Bob?

What other “carbon” emissions are you talking about Bob?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 17, 2014 11:35AM)
[quote]On Apr 17, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I see tommy remains fixated on the idea that all carbon emissions are CO2 and that they are beneficial.

Like I said, some remain immune to science and reason.

Leave your car running in a closed garage for a while and tell me how good it is for the atmosphere in the garage. [/quote]

If all carbon emissions are not CO2 then what other "carbon" emissions you talking about Bob?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 17, 2014 11:36AM)
Why is it have d to weigh benefits globally yet so easy to project disaster?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 17, 2014 11:38AM)
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsOL5nWkn1k
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Apr 17, 2014 12:28PM)
Fact: The world will come to an end. WHEN is the question.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 17, 2014 12:36PM)
10 or more years ago according to warmers.

Which must have happened because 95% their scientists said it would.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 17, 2014 12:43PM)
Tommy- rather than asking the same question over and over again, why not read what I already posted.

Is carbon MONOXIDE a carbon emission? Last I looked it was. It is not a greenhouse gas, but I'm sure you're aware it is poisonous. (Or do you think that's good for us as well?)

But, as the information you choose to ignore indicates, there are additional greenhouse gasses as well.

Reading is fundamental.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 17, 2014 02:31PM)
I am sorry Bob. I mistakenly thought your quote was from what I had put up, which I had already read and so I never read your quote from wiki but only read your words and thought you were avoiding my question.

There is difference between CO-carbon monoxide and CO2-carbon dioxide:
CO and CO2 – What’s the difference?

It’s easy to understand why people confuse CO-carbon monoxide and CO2-carbon dioxide. The names sound the same, they both are colorless and odorless gases, and at high concentration, both can kill you.
The media doesn’t help. Back in the old days, movies taught us that you could commit suicide by sticking a garden hose in your car’s tailpipe and window, then gunning the motor till the CO put you to sleep. Today they tell us the car’s tailpipe is a major source of the greenhouse gas CO2.
It’s important that you understand the difference:
About Carbon Monoxide
CO does not occur naturally in the atmosphere
CO is the result of oxygen-starved combustion in improperly ventilated fuel-burning appliances such as oil and gas furnaces, gas water heaters, gas ovens, gas or kerosene space heaters, fire places and wood stoves
CO is generated by any gasoline engine that DOES NOT use a catalytic converter
It is the most common type of fatal poisoning in many countries
CO Recommended Levels
OSHA limits long-term workplace exposure levels to 50ppm (parts per million)
Symptoms of mild CO poisoning include headaches and dizziness at concentrations less than 100ppm
Concentrations as low as 700ppm can be life-threatening
About Carbon Dioxide
CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, and is required for plant life
CO2 is a natural byproduct of human and animal respiration, fermentation, chemical reactions, and combustion of fossil fuels and wood
CO2 is generated by any gasoline engine that DOES use a catalytic converter
CO2 poisoning is rare; however scuba divers have to watch out for it (the bends)
CO2 Recommended Levels
385ppm is the current average on the planet
ASHRAE recommends a 1,000ppm limit for office buildings and classrooms
OSHA limits long-term workplace exposure levels to 5,000ppm
Drowsiness can occur at 10,000ppm – common in closed cars or auditoriums
Symptoms of mild CO2 poisoning include headaches and dizziness at concentrations less than 30,000ppm (3%)
At 80,000ppm (8%) CO2 can be life-threatenin

http://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/1209952-co-and-co2-whats-the-difference
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 17, 2014 06:09PM)
[quote]On Apr 17, 2014, tommy wrote:
I am not as I see it but me and the Rockefeller are both out for population control and our only difference lies is in who we should kill. [/quote]
Nope, you're always on the same side, supporting fossil fuels and centralized energy sources.

Bu,t of course, you know, that though you may be on their side, they are not on yours.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 17, 2014 09:34PM)
[quote]On Apr 17, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:

You say prepare for the worst. Here is where it gets tricky. What do you think needs to be done to prepare. Carbon tax? Government intervention and making it so oil companies can't operate? What do you consider reasonable things to be done to "prepare for the worst"?

[/quote]

Clearly, we can't legislate away the use of fossil fuels, unless there is a suitable and economically viable alternative. Which at present, there isn't. But we'll have to move in that direction eventually, for reasons that go beyond climate change and involve considerations of national security.

If we continue on the path we're on, we'll either have to increasingly cut deals that empower nations hostile to our interests, or we'll wind up in a dangerous cycle of boom and bust as regional politics and wars dictate the price of our energy. If viable alternatives to fossil fuels are possible, it seems that the quickest catalyst would be simultaneously increasing the cost of carbon fuels to reflect the externalities of their effect on the environment, while investing whatever it takes to promote alternatives that currently are not economically viable, but may be in the future. The private sector isn't very good at long-range planning like that, due to the nature of quarterly business cycles, but will be quick to capitalize on potential profits if our governments lay down some seed money. The Internet, as well as everything involving satellites and GPS technology are proof of that. Even Bell Labs, which brought us the transistor, lasers, the UNIX operating system (the basis for Apple's OS), CDMA digital cellular telephone technology etc., was made possible by an initial government grant and subsequent government contracts.

So basically I'm agreeing with you that we can't just ban current technologies. But we can make them more expensive to reflect their true societal cost, while investing heavily in future technologies. There will be some Solyndras, to be sure, but the eventual successes will have the potential to change the world.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 17, 2014 10:50PM)
The world has changed many times. It will do so better if government gets out of the way.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 17, 2014 11:14PM)
That is the free-market mantra, but it ignores the government's role in making markets work. In a true free market society, there would be no patents, no copyright protections, no courts to enforce contracts - all of those things are creations of the government, and they are the bedrock upon which private industry exists.

And of course, there would also have been no transcontinental railroad system without government land grants, no highways without the exercise of eminent domain, no checks on organized crime, no protections against foreign governments nationalizing overseas interests, no modern navigation systems, no recognized borders or defense from foreign invasion, no protections against bank failures, no internationally fungible currency, etc.

If you're speaking in geologic terms, yes the world has changed many times. But humans haven't been around long enough to have experienced the biggest changes, and there's no guarantee we'll survive the next. The earth will do fine, with or without us. That's not the issue.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 18, 2014 12:11AM)
I am saying for example the government did not invent the car.

As for geologic terms yes the world has changed. Many times.

I still ask what exact temp is everyone looking for? What is the perfect world and what regulations will help us achieve that?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Apr 18, 2014 02:01AM)
We aren't looking for a perfect temperature. The temperature can't be controlled that way. We are hoping to slow down the process of global warming so that the worst effects are avoided if possible.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 18, 2014 02:01AM)
Well said, Pop!

Danny -

No, the government did not invent the car. But I think we can agree that cars would be pretty useless if the government hadn't spent hundreds of billions of dollars building roads everywhere. Yes, there are some private toll roads, but generally only of the profitable turnpike variety, rather than the ones we rely on to get us from our house to the grocery and hardware stores. And let's face it, there are few industries in which the government is more involved than the automobile industry - everything from safety regulations, fuel efficiency standards, consumer protection, testing and licensing of drivers, and bailing out huge auto companies that would otherwise have gone ta-ta's up (GM). And again, the government is involved in all aspects of patent, trademark, copyright and contract enforcement that make the auto industry viable. In addition, recent developments such as the opposed-piston, two stroke internal combustion design were initially seeded by government contracts.

The perfect temp? Probably pretty close to our historical averages over the last couple of hundred years. Anything much different than that is going to require some major infrastructure and food supply adaptations, the expense of which will dwarf whatever it would've cost to invest in cleaner energy.

What regulations will help us achieve that? Great question, but (1) way too big for one person to answer, and (2) it presupposes that people agree that there's an issue that needs to be addressed. As you can see from this thread, as well the numbingly repetitive debates in Congress and on Sunday morning talk shows, we're not even there yet.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 18, 2014 06:49AM)
Nope, its you that that do not understand what side Rockefeller nor the big oil are on or what they want. the Rockefeller is behind the warming scam. He set up the Club of Rome which came up global warming and all the things the water melons are asking for. Now ask why he would want all that before coming out with your nonsense go and read what the Rockefeller is asking for himself.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Apr 18, 2014 07:25AM)
This says it all:

[url=http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/16/earth-serially-doomed-un-issues-new-15-year-climate-tipping-point-but-un-first-issued-10-year-tipping-point-in-1989/]Earth Serially Doomed: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989![/url]

[url=http://newsbusters.org/node/12852]Flashback 2007: New Zealand Scientist on Global Warming: It's All Going to be a Joke in 5 Years[/url]

It doesn't matter, we'll blow ourselves up long before any climate change.

I'm moving to [url=http://www.nasa.gov/ames/kepler/kepler-186f-the-first-earth-size-planet-in-the-habitable-zone/]Kepler 186f[/url].
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 18, 2014 07:56AM)
In short what the Rockefeller and Co is after is a monopoly of “all” there is. Once he has that control, then the Rockefeller has the power to tell you the peasants what and how much you can have and what you must do to live at all. Much better for the Rockefeller than buying and selling isn't it? The UN are demanding Global Governance of all resources on planet earth. The UN is the the Rockefeller. Why do you think the Rockefeller and Co want your governments to sign all resources over to the control of the UN? Well why, why he is trying to save the planet that's why! Yeah right. When that penny drops with you, then let me know. Until then Kay, you can carry thinking that the Big oil boys are against the warming scam.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 18, 2014 08:21AM)
Just when I thought I was out, they keep pulling me in!

They, like all Capitalists, play both sides if there's money to be made. See, tommy we actually agree on quite a bit. I just like to call them for what they are--Capitalists. You label them socialists and thus by implication denigrate the one thing that can possibly fight big money-- the power of a lot of unrich people banding together and deciding democratically what will benefit *themselves* for a change. Historically, that's been the only way to stop the b*stards. When you close your eyes as to who the enemy really is, you make bad alliances and get stabbed in the back.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Apr 18, 2014 09:05AM)
[quote]On Apr 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
When you close your eyes as to who the enemy really is, you make bad alliances and get stabbed in the back. [/quote]

Do we really know who the enemy is? Majority has a tendency to rule.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 18, 2014 09:18AM)
The Rockefeller & Co plan is a roaring success anyway and will be complete by the end of this century. For those who survive the reign of terror it will be a wonderful world: No more traffic jams. No more oil, food and water shortages. No more people than we need.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 18, 2014 10:46AM)
The problem is without a goal we have no way to achieve it. This leads to people exaggerating for effect. Why has nobody answered why it is ok to do so?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Apr 18, 2014 12:13PM)
The goal is to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 18, 2014 12:41PM)
Absolutely. I think the goal should be more geared to development of new energy forms. In my view "fracking" or whatever that is called is simply perpetuating the OLD form and not progress. I think renewable energy is going to be the wave of the future, or at least SHOULD be!

AND what works nice is as we DO develop these things, the carbon emissions get reduced by default.

The ONLY point we may disagree upon is simply what the role of our government is in the equation. I happen to believe if they just get out of the way it would be quicker. But I am glad to see it put in non doomsday terms so we can see more of the truth, and more where agreement can be found!

I think this would take far fewer pages if we started where we agree, and concentrated on that as opposed to where everyone disagrees.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 18, 2014 03:24PM)
Why do they have no goal?

THE NATIONAL POLICE GAZETTE 1902

THEY HAVE A SHELL GAME

The boys at Block Island are learning a new game called "curiosity" which was invented by a clever girl, who needed a little extra spending money. It's a great game, and all the girls are playing it now, and new arrivals who may develjp Into victims are eagerly watched for. It is an absurdly simple game. A ring is drawn on the sand and then clam shells are pitched at It; that'H all. The girls are pitching eagerly until a man comes along.

"Do you want to play? '' they ask.

"Certainly! What is it? " is the invariable reasponce.

"Curiosity. Take five clam shells and throw them
at the ring."

"Well, what's the game ? What do you have to do?"
"Well, you throw the shells and well show you.
You can't learn all at once you know."

So he takes his shells and starts in. He throws one and it misses the ring altogether. .

"One dollar, please," says the pretiest girl of the lot.

"What for?"

"Why, you've missed the ring."

So he forks over a brand new simoleon and starts in for the second throw. He measures the distance-very carefully, and then lets go. The clam shell drops on the sand in the exact centre of the ring.

"Twodollars, please." This from the same pretty
girl, who is treasurer of the bandits.

"What for I went in the ring!"

"Of course you did, and there's where you lose two dollars.”

"Well, this is a great game. I can't win, can I?

"Certainly not, but you gratify your curiosity, and one thing more. If you don't want to throw the three shells you have left you will have to pay $3 for the privilege of holding them."

Great game, isn't it? What do think of it?

There's no possible chance for a man as usual.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 19, 2014 04:52AM)
The alarmists are no longer the ones who say “warming” but are now the ones who say “change”.

In times of yore they were the Knights of Nee.

ARTHUR: O, Knights of Nee, we have brought you your shrubbery. May we
go now?
HEAD KNIGHT: It is a good shrubbery. I like the laurels particularly.
But there is one small problem.
ARTHUR: What is that?
HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say Nee.
RANDOM: Nee!
HEAD KNIGHT: Shh shh. We are now the Knights Who Say Ecky-ecky-ecky-
ecky-pikang-zoom-boing-mumble-mumble.
RANDOM: Nee!
HEAD KNIGHT: Therefore, we must give you a test.
ARTHUR: What is this test, O Knights of-- Knights Who 'Til Recently
Said Nee?
HEAD KNIGHT: Firstly, you must find... another shrubbery!
[dramatic chord]
ARTHUR: Not another shrubbery!
HEAD KNIGHT: Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place
it here beside this shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get a
two-level effect with a little path running down the middle.
RANDOM: A path! A path! Nee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTQfGd3G6dg
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Apr 19, 2014 09:57AM)
ROGER: Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land. Nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 19, 2014 11:17AM)
I think it may be more productive to talk about that movie than the subject of this thread. Thanks Destiny!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 19, 2014 11:56AM)
And what is the first thing to do when you are not in a hole?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a97cOa2Sy9A
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 22, 2014 03:43PM)
[quote]...As of April 20, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 401.17 ppm. That figure is based on readings from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The scientists who monitor atmospheric carbon dioxide levels expect that levels will stay above 400 ppm until late June or July.

Tans said that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is now increasing at a rate that is at least 100 times faster than it has been at any time since record-keeping began. At some point next year or the year after, based on current rates, carbon dioxide levels will rise above 400 ppm and will not be likely to fall below that mark again.

The amount of carbon dioxide that gets naturally absorbed from the atmosphere varies according to the time of year, said Tans. During late spring and early summer in the northern hemisphere, trees and plants take in more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But as emissions generated by human activities rise, those cycles can no longer offset them. "We are basically overwhelming natural uptake processes," said Tans.

The late Charles David Keeling, a renowned scientist affiliated with the University of California, San Diego, began keeping daily measurements of atmospheric carbon at Mauna Loa in 1958. The record showing the increasing carbon levels at the observatory is today known as the "Keeling Curve." His son, Ralph Keeling, is now the director of the CO2 program at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC-San Diego and has continued to record those levels since his father's death in 2005.

The younger Keeling says the importance of the 400 ppm figure is largely psychological. While there isn't a substantial difference between the impacts of 395 ppm and 405 ppm, crossing that threshold makes it impossible to ignore that something serious is happening.

"When you focus on the fact that it's moving through thresholds like that, you get an appreciation for how it's actually changing," said Keeling. "It's a wake-up call about how much we've already changed the atmosphere."

"I think people accept the reality that CO2 is rising, but they don't have a grasp of what it means quantitatively," he continued. "I hope people remember this moment so that when the hear the carbon dioxide levels are 420 parts per million in a matter of years, they'll say, 'I remember when it was 400.'"

Based on current trends, 420 ppm probably isn't too far off. Currently, carbon dioxide levels are increasing by about 2 parts per million per year. And few countries have given any indication that they plan to cut emissions in the near future -- at least, not enough to affect the trajectory the planet is on.

"The momentum we're seeing right now, going upwards, I think is going to easily carry us through 450 parts per million," said Keeling. "And then I would say even stabilizing before 500 parts per million is probably not going to be very easy."

Bill McKibben, an author and co-founder of the group 350.org, criticized the U.S. government for not doing more to curb emissions. His group draws its name from 350 parts per million -- the level that some scientists have said is the maximum allowable for maintaining ecosystems and the human systems that depend on them...[/quote]

Complete article with illustrative graph at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/carbon-dioxide-climate-change_n_5187844.html
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 22, 2014 08:08PM)
If you are a devout believer in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then will you go heaven or hell?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Apr 23, 2014 06:29AM)
As our reward for destroying the world economy by raising false alarms of imminent climatic disaster, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers have promised us somewhere special to live afterwards.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 23, 2014 08:21AM)
China?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 23, 2014 10:40AM)
A relevant, but somewhat long article. The comments are interesting as well.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/22-3
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 23, 2014 12:51PM)
Excellent article, landmark, and right on point.

We have a serious problem and it's starting to look like we'll do nothing about it. I pity the future generations who will be severely affected by those who choose to ignore and deny what unregulated consumerism and capitalism is doing to the planet.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 23, 2014 01:01PM)
What are the communist dreams?
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 25, 2014 07:04PM)
[quote]On Apr 23, 2014, tommy wrote:
What are the communist dreams? [/quote]

Maybe a healthy planet that supports life and biodiversity? If that's not a capitalist dream as well, it should be. Capitalism will have a very short and insignificant run without it.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 25, 2014 08:06PM)
Yes maybe kill most all of the people. No man no problem.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 26, 2014 12:00AM)
Republican does full reversal on climate change after doing some actual research:

[quote]Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) appears to have completely reversed his views on climate change as he fights to be reelected to a district hit hard by Hurricane Sandy.

Grimm tells MSNBC's Chris Hayes that his views have evolved in an excerpt from Showtime's “Years of Living Dangerously” series:

CHRIS HAYES: Last time you and I spoke, you said the jury was still out on climate science. Do you still feel that way?

Michael GRIMM: After speaking with Bob Inglis, it made me do some of my own research, you know, I looked at some of the stuff that he sent over, my staff looked at. But the mass majority of respected scientists say that it’s conclusive, the evidence is clear. So I don't think the jury is out.

CHRIS HAYES: The basic story of -- we’re putting carbon in the atmosphere, the planet’s getting warmer, that’s gonna make the sea levels rise -- like, the basic story of that, you pretty much agree with, right?

Michael GRIMM: Sure, I mean there’s no question that, um, you know, the oceans have risen, right? And the climate change part is, is a real part of it. The problem that we're gonna have right now -- there's no oxygen left in the room in Washington for another big debate, that’s the reality.

Grimm's comments to Hayes come just four years after he said at a candidate debate that "the jury is obviously still out" in response to a question about whether he believed climate change is "real."[/quote]

full article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/michael-grimm-climate-change_n_5213523.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 26, 2014 02:32AM)
The science of anthropogenic global warming is settled, and has been for decades. Just not the way the AGW alarmists would have you believe.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/global_warming_and_settled_science.html
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Apr 26, 2014 03:52AM)
[quote]On Apr 22, 2014, tommy wrote:
If you are a devout believer in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then will you go heaven or hell? [/quote]

I should think neither since such a belief has nothing to do with an afterlife.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Apr 26, 2014 04:07AM)
[quote]On Apr 23, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Excellent article, landmark, and right on point.

We have a serious problem and it's starting to look like we'll do nothing about it. I pity the future generations who will be severely affected by those who choose to ignore and deny what unregulated consumerism and capitalism is doing to the planet. [/quote]

I remember a book by Larry Niven "The Ringworld." I'll have to digress a little bit.

In the book, Niven presents two alien races, the Kzinti (a warrior race of cat like people) and the Pierson's Puppeteers. The chief characteristic of the Puppeteers is that they are devout cowards. The only Puppeteers that explore or deal with alien races are those considered "insane" by the rest of the population. One Puppeteer scout ship travels to the core of the galaxy and what they find there so terrifies the Puppeteers that they pack up their entire star system, turn it into a slower than light starship (look up "generation ship) and are actually fleeing to the outer rim of the galaxy.

While on the Ringworld, the hero, Louis Wu, explains why he's working with the Puppeteer who has put together the exploration party. (paraphrasing because it's been a long time since I read the book) "Whatever's out there that terrified the Puppeteers is coming this way. We're going to sit there and study the problem until we only have about 100 years or so left and then WE'RE going to have to try and move the entire human population! That's going to take something like Ringworld technology to pull off."

I remember thinking Niven had made a very clever point. We, as a group, do nothing until it's almost too late, then we scrabble around looking for a solution to a problem that would have been easier to fix years earlier.

I've watched this argument building since the 70's; "The tree huggers are crazy, there's nothing happening to the environment." "Wait, something's happening to the environment, but there's no proof of a gradual increase." "You found evidence of a gradual increase, but there's no evidence that we've had anything significant to do with it."

Or, as Richard Dreyfus' character observes in "Jaws;" "I can see that you are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims out of the water and bites you in the #@@!"
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 26, 2014 05:16AM)
[quote]On Apr 26, 2014, tommy wrote:
The science of anthropogenic global warming is settled, and has been for decades. Just not the way the AGW alarmists would have you believe.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/global_warming_and_settled_science.html [/quote]

Funny, I can't find any peer reviewed research papers by this "scientist." But, then again, it's not surprising given that americanthinker.com is an extremist right wing site. Did you bother to look at the other articles on the site? Did you notice that Ann Coulter is one of their main contributors?

It's amazing, tommy, that you will readily accept "proof" from the most spurious and politically motivated sources, but will not even consider the consensus of nearly ALL of the world's climate scientists.

When you were arguing that sea level was the same everywhere, we presented you with ample proof that that was not the case. You rejected all of it out of hand UNTIL some guy came into your bar, told you he once worked at the Panama Canal, and that it was indeed true that sea level was different on either end. THEN you decided you were wrong- because some guy in a bar told you.

Pretty much the same standard you apply in every case. Dismiss the serious research and accept whatever anyone else says without question. (Even though in the sea level case, the guy in the bar was correct. But, then again, so was all the research we gave you before he convinced you.)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 26, 2014 08:01AM)
The IPCC provides no proof whatsoever that it is composed of the world’s top scientists. In fact, it declines to make public the CVs of its personnel.
Certain IPCC lead authors and chapter leaders have historically been graduate students a decade or more away from earning their PhD (see here and here)
Other IPCC lead authors are poorly qualified individuals from obscure nations, who were selected to give the report an international flavour.
60% of the people who helped produce this latest report have never worked with the IPCC before (see the bottom of p. 3 of this PDF). Was there really a 60% turnover rate in the world’s top scientists since the last IPCC report appeared in 2007?
IPCC personnel have so little power, they aren’t able to alter their chapter title by a single word. In reality, these people are mere cogs in a large, bureaucratic, UN machine.
Many IPCC personnel are not “scientists” in the way that term is normally understood. They are, instead, economists, geographers, policy wonks, UN employees, and activists.


http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/04/22/delusions-climactic-otherwise-the-new-york-times/

Who exactly are your so called experts Bob?

The IPCC provides no proof whatsoever that it is composed of the world’s top scientists. In fact, it declines to make public the CVs of its personnel. Hmmm
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 26, 2014 08:53AM)
Or, tommy you could go to Annex V of the IPCC report and read the full list of authors and google their CVs. Each author's institutional affiliation is given.

I realize that blogs spoon feed you pre-chewed and half-digested opinions, and that saves time and energy. But you might find it oddly satisfying to look at the report for yourself.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 26, 2014 09:49AM)
That is the least informed post you've made to date, tommy. And that's saying a lot. Take just five minutes and you can, as Magnus said, find ALL of them and their credentials.

I'm sure you won't though as I'm now convinced that you either or just trolling this topic and/or will only read opinions that conform to conspiracy theories and extremist ideologies.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 26, 2014 10:20AM)
OK lets start with number One on your list of so called top experts and here he is talking:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14r68p_are-global-temperatures-rising-or-not_news

Q: There has been NO significant warming for the last 15 years so what has happened to the warming then?

A: Well I don't know we think it's gone into the sea!

Q: Gone into the sea?

A: Yes we think so. We are not sure but we have only just got some new gadgets to measure it in the sea and we think that is causing the sea to rise.

Q: Well are you expecting any warming, in say the next 20 years or so?

A: Well we are not sure. We are expecting it to bounce back sometime in the future.

Gone into the sea eh. LOL
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Apr 26, 2014 01:24PM)
[quote]On Apr 26, 2014, tommy wrote:
OK lets start with number One on your list of so called top experts and here he is talking:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14r68p_are-global-temperatures-rising-or-not_news

Q: There has been NO significant warming for the last 15 years so what has happened to the warming then?

A: Well I don't know we think it's gone into the sea!

Q: Gone into the sea?

A: Yes we think so. We are not sure but we have only just got some new gadgets to measure it in the sea and we think that is causing the sea to rise.

Q: Well are you expecting any warming, in say the next 20 years or so?

A: Well we are not sure. We are expecting it to bounce back sometime in the future.

Gone into the sea eh. LOL [/quote]

Did you actually listen to the interview? Cubasch agrees with greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. The issue in the discussion is that right now, the oceans are sinking more of the energy than they expected.

Later in the interview:

Q: Is it possible that one day you will find that human kind is not to blame for global warming?
A: I don't think so...

Tommy, are you sure you want to invoke Cubasch to support your contentions?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Apr 26, 2014 01:40PM)
Tommy only picks and chooses snippets of things that seem to support his premise and ignores the rest.

The undeniable facts are that sea levels are rising, arctic ice is melting, the ocean is getting warmer, and all of this corresponds to a forty percent increase in greenhouse gases since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 26, 2014 02:55PM)
I actually appreciate Tommy's posts. I get to show them to my son as examples of the the kind of folks he may run up against if he tries to change things for the better. Like it or not, there are millions of Tommys out there, and there always have been. Sometimes I think that's why we are genetically coded to die off every 75 years or so - so new generations can move us forward and older folks whose thinking just can't be changed will get out of the way. Imagine if the U.S. Confederates from the 1860's were still alive today. If my grandmother was any indication, we'd still be debating whether African Americans are in fact people.
Message: Posted by: Patrick Differ (Apr 26, 2014 04:05PM)
I believe in the Scientific Process. It's not faith-based. It's challenged, then challenged again, and then again and again and again. For the last ten years I've heard that our self-caused high CO2 levels cause the greenhouse effect, and that the greenhouse effect will RADICALLY change weather patterns. I haven't heard of one study that debunks what the majority of scientists have said regarding how we are altering our (only) atmosphere in ways that could threaten our very existence. That's enough for me, pal.

Getting off the oil standard is a good idea any way you look at it. I don't trust oil companies anyway. They'll pitch fits over any study that hampers or threatens to hamper their profit-making abilities. I can hear them now, "What do you mean CO2 levels are the highest they ever been in 800,000 years? Who cares? We can't stop now! WE STILL HAVE OIL TO SELL!" I say, "Bunk!" Invest in alternative energy. Better yet, bet everything you have, including everyone's lives, on alternative energy. It's the only bloody sane thing to do.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 26, 2014 04:11PM)
Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#ixzz301rf6ozY
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Apr 26, 2014 04:21PM)
And there he goes again...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 26, 2014 04:24PM)
Many myths are quoted as facts by the media, politicians and the administration. We provide information below to debunk many of the myths.

Pollutions Myths
Of all the myths quoted, calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is the worst - it simply is not true!

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=368
Message: Posted by: Randwill (Apr 26, 2014 05:55PM)
That Natural News site has some pretty insane stuff.

How about this one, "Confirmed: Oregon power company says it will stop burning aborted babies to produce electricity for residents"

http://www.naturalnews.com/044854_aborted_babies_waste-to-energy_plant_green_energy.html
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 26, 2014 06:58PM)
They are doing that over here. The tech comes from Swenson. No seems to think there is anything wrong about it. Why waste heat? That's what the public were saying about it on TV here the other day. The new normal.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (May 3, 2014 06:39PM)
New milestone!

Studies have shown that CO2 levels have not been this high in at least 800,000 years, and possibly as long as 15 million years.

Hot enough for ya?

http://mashable.com/2014/05/02/april-2014-highest-co2-levels/?utm_content=feature_title&utm_cid=mash-prod-email-topstories&utm_emailalert=daily&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 4, 2014 08:04PM)
No it is still freezing here. Tell them to pump it up a bit. We have had no warming for 15 years now.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (May 4, 2014 09:06PM)
Http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 4, 2014 09:14PM)
Http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14r68p_are-global-temperatures-rising-or-not_news
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 4, 2014 09:15PM)
Tommy, once again, prefers to believe the myths, so I doubt if he'll even look at your link, Pop.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 4, 2014 09:46PM)
Well your number 1 expert said it so you must the deniers.
Message: Posted by: RNK (May 5, 2014 09:42AM)
[quote]On Apr 26, 2014, tommy wrote:
Many myths are quoted as facts by the media, politicians and the administration. We provide information below to debunk many of the myths.

Pollutions Myths
Of all the myths quoted, calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is the worst - it simply is not true!

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=368 [/quote]


Come on Tommy- you should know by now that facts don't matter when the facts don't jive with what the Global Warming Pushers believe. Why even try anymore? They just ignore YOUR facts and post about their facts without a response to yours. It's rather funny.

RNK
Message: Posted by: RNK (May 5, 2014 09:44AM)
[quote]On Apr 18, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Absolutely. I think the goal should be more geared to development of new energy forms. In my view "fracking" or whatever that is called is simply perpetuating the OLD form and not progress. I think renewable energy is going to be the wave of the future, or at least SHOULD be!

AND what works nice is as we DO develop these things, the carbon emissions get reduced by default.

The ONLY point we may disagree upon is simply what the role of our government is in the equation. I happen to believe if they just get out of the way it would be quicker. But I am glad to see it put in non doomsday terms so we can see more of the truth, and more where agreement can be found!

I think this would take far fewer pages if we started where we agree, and concentrated on that as opposed to where everyone disagrees. [/quote]

Excellent post Danny.

+1
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 5, 2014 09:54AM)
[quote]On May 4, 2014, tommy wrote:
Well your number 1 expert said it so you must the deniers. [/quote]

Yawn. If you are referring to your earlier interview link, he said that the SURFACE TEMPERATURE has been stable for 15 years, but that the OCEAN TEMPERATURE has been rising throughout this period.

Don't know about the "number 1 expert", but he is certainly an expert.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 5, 2014 10:06AM)
If the problem isn't surface temperature why is it always cited?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 5, 2014 10:09AM)
[quote]On May 5, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
If the problem isn't surface temperature why is it always cited? [/quote]

The press is not organized. Nor particularly well informed in science. They report what they can.

The main issue, as I understand it, is radiative forcing. Energy that normally escapes our atmosphere is being reflected back at earth. The data indicate that for about a century, this energy could be detected in surface temperatures. It appears that the high surface temperatures are now stable (but much higher than before the industrial revolution) and now the ocean temperatures are rising.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 5, 2014 10:10AM)
[quote]On May 3, 2014, Pop Haydn wrote:
New milestone!

Studies have shown that CO2 levels have not been this high in at least 800,000 years, and possibly as long as 15 million years.

Hot enough for ya?

http://mashable.com/2014/05/02/april-2014-highest-co2-levels/?utm_content=feature_title&utm_cid=mash-prod-email-topstories&utm_emailalert=daily&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily [/quote]

Is this a case where we are allowed to know or mention the agenda of the source?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 5, 2014 11:10AM)
[quote]On May 5, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On May 3, 2014, Pop Haydn wrote:
New milestone!

Studies have shown that CO2 levels have not been this high in at least 800,000 years, and possibly as long as 15 million years.

Hot enough for ya?

http://mashable.com/2014/05/02/april-2014-highest-co2-levels/?utm_content=feature_title&utm_cid=mash-prod-email-topstories&utm_emailalert=daily&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily [/quote]

Is this a case where we are allowed to know or mention the agenda of the source? [/quote]

Of course. What's up with the NOAA?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 5, 2014 11:16AM)
Good question, Magnus. Never thought of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) observatory as having an agenda.

This is just the latest data.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (May 5, 2014 12:45PM)
Danny, do you have some reason to believe that the CO2 figures in the report are inaccurate?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 5, 2014 01:55PM)
Not a single reason. I just want to know we are being consistent.

It was more of an off hand remark than a real position. I stand by my post of I think concentrating less on arguments and more on agreement. Moving away from declaring settled science and to actual proposals.

The doom discussion from both sides has become tiresome. One side almost a religion and the other at least as fervent in their desire to never give an inch.

Pop I claim the environment has become a proxy war for those on both sides s with other agendas. The problem is while the war rages nothing is done and it is our planet that suffers. Not as kuch as the doomsayers claim but it does.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 5, 2014 02:17PM)
Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

UPDATE: January 1st, 2012 – still here, no reports of mass deaths at the last minute. – Anthony

Global warming may go on a last minute rampage. Maybe best to just stay at home and lock your doors, bar your windows, and turn your air conditioner on. If you live near the coast, head for high ground. Deaths due to drinking and driving will be nothing compared to this.

This story appeared in The Canadian January 8th, 2007, it’s been a countdown example of stupidity ever since. Unbelievably, it is still on their website. Note today’s date.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html


Climate fails:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 5, 2014 02:53PM)
[quote]On May 5, 2014, tommy wrote:
Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

UPDATE: January 1st, 2012 – still here, no reports of mass deaths at the last minute. – Anthony

Global warming may go on a last minute rampage. Maybe best to just stay at home and lock your doors, bar your windows, and turn your air conditioner on. If you live near the coast, head for high ground. Deaths due to drinking and driving will be nothing compared to this.

This story appeared in The Canadian January 8th, 2007, it’s been a countdown example of stupidity ever since. Unbelievably, it is still on their website. Note today’s date.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
[/quote]

The article honesty and honourably said things like [quote]The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated)...[/quote]

It didn't make a hard prediction.

[quote]
Climate fails:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/ [/quote]

Ah yes, a report on a meeting where one person [Macedonian economist and diplomat Srgjan Kerim] is paraphrased as saying [quote]it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.[/quote]

Boy aren't those scientists' cheeks red now!
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 5, 2014 03:19PM)
Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

Hydrate hypothesis illuminates growing climate change alarm

Compiled by John Stokes

A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.

In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.

The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life.

By the way, the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists. I suggest you Google the term.

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing the Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to when we will pass the tipping point and be helpless to stop the runaway Global Warming.

There are enormous quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and under the oceans in ice-like structures called clathrates. The methane in Arctic permafrost clathrates is estimated at 400 billion tons.

Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 billion tons of the gas.

The highest temperature increase from global warming is occurring in the arctic regions-an area rich in these unstable clathrates. Simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half the permafrost will thaw by 2050, and as much as 90 percent by 2100.

Peat deposits may be a comparable methane source to melting permafrost. When peat that has been frozen for thousands of years thaws, it still contains viable populations of bacteria that begin to convert the peat into methane and CO2.

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. The west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70 billion tonnes of methane. Local atmospheric levels of methane on the Siberian shelf are now 25 times higher than global concentrations.

By the way, warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons have caused microbial activity to increase dramatically in the soil around the world. This, in turn, means that much of the carbon long stored in the soil is now being released into the atmosphere.

Releases of methane from melting oceanic clathrates have caused severe environmental impacts in the past. The methane in oceanic clathrates has been estimated at 10,000 billion tons.

55 million years ago a global warming chain reaction (probably started by volcanic activity) melted oceanic clathrates. It was one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events in geologic history.

Humans appear to be capable of emitting CO2 in quantities comparable to the volcanic activity that started these chain reactions. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, burning fossil fuels releases more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes.

Methane in the atmosphere does not remain long, persisting for about 10 years before being oxidized to CO2 (a greenhouse gas that lasts for hundreds of thousands of years). Chronic methane releases oxidizing into CO2 contribute as much to warming as does the transient methane concentrations.

To summarize, human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Bacteria converts carbon in the soil into greenhouse gasses, and enormous quantities are trapped in unstable clathrates. As the earth continues to warm, permafrost clathrates will thaw; peat and soil microbial activity will dramatically increase; and, finally, vast oceanic clathrates will melt. This global warming chain reaction has happened in the past.

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose by a record amount over the past year. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply. Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear the trend could be the first sign of runaway global warming.

Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.

Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.

Bibliographic reference courtesy of Brad Arnold who has an extensive resrarch background on Global Warming.


A right load of scaremongering crap in all honesty and honourably.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 5, 2014 03:40PM)
Do you understand the words "hypothesis" and "if validated"?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 5, 2014 03:51PM)
Do you understand the words honesty and honourably? It's a right load of scaremongering crap, deliberately designed with the intention of scaring the public into going along with the political policies of the Watermelons and you know it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 5, 2014 04:56PM)
I have a hypothesis that if validated will see 12 billion people killed in 2016 by raccoon farts.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 5, 2014 04:57PM)
[quote]On May 5, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I have a hypothesis that if validated will see 12 billion people killed in 2016 by raccoon farts. [/quote]

:)
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 5, 2014 06:37PM)
There is compelling evidence that the atmosphere’s rising CO2 content is most likely the primary cause of the observed greening trends. That is to say, Earth is becoming greener as a result of rising CO2 levels. Hopefully this we help feed all the starving children and creatures in the world. I personally have observed the apples on my trees are now a 1000 times bigger than they were yesterday.
Message: Posted by: RNK (May 6, 2014 12:09PM)
[quote]On May 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Do you understand the words "hypothesis" and "if validated"? [/quote]

Then obviously you agree that nothing has been validated.....

Further- those who believe in Global Warming or excuse me- now Global Climate Change since they can't truly prove warming- how do you explain the recent historical periods when MAN was not around in which the climate was hotter then cooler then hotter then cooler? Obviously man had NOTHING to do with periods/epochs/era'a of climate change. Looking forward to some explanations.


RNK
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 6, 2014 12:31PM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On May 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Do you understand the words "hypothesis" and "if validated"? [/quote]

Then obviously you agree that nothing has been validated.....[quote]

The difference between science and internet blogs is the level of certainty. Science is continually gathering new data and revising. Blogosphere deniers just dig their heels in and say the same thing until everyone is numb.

[quote]
Further- those who believe in Global Warming or excuse me- now Global Climate Change since they can't truly prove warming- how do you explain the recent historical periods when MAN was not around in which the climate was hotter then cooler then hotter then cooler? Obviously man had NOTHING to do with periods/epochs/era'a of climate change. Looking forward to some explanations.


RNK [/quote]

That's a pretty gruesome non sequitur. That warming and cooling have occurred in the past provides zero evidence to the proposition that industrial emissions change the atmosphere's radiative forcing.

Nobody denies that there are many natural forces at work (including ocean currents, solar energy, volcanoes and other earth-sourced airborne particles, etc. etc. etc.) The question before us is whether human industrial activity contributes to climate change. The scientific answer is that the best evidence clearly indicates that it does. The blogosphere denialist position is that it couldn't possibly be so.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (May 6, 2014 01:14PM)
From the NCA Full Report:

Http://www.globalchange.gov/

Key Messages
1. Global climate is changing and this change is apparent across a wide range of observations. The
global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities.
2. Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond. The magnitude
of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-
trapping gases emitted globally, and how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to those emissions.
3. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since record keeping began in 1895;
most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the nation’s
warmest on record. Temperatures in the United States are expected to continue to rise. Because
human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise
has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country or over time.
4. The length of the frost-free season (and the corresponding growing season) has been increasing
nationally since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States,
affecting ecosystems and agriculture. Across the United States, the growing season is projected
to continue to lengthen.
5. Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have had increases
greater than the national average, and some areas have had decreases. More winter and spring
precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this
century.
6. Heavy downpours are increasing nationally, especially over the last three to five decades.
Largest increases are in the Midwest and Northeast. Increases in the frequency and intensity of
extreme precipitation events are projected for all U.S. regions.
7. There have been changes in some types of extreme weather events over the last several
decades. Heat waves have become more frequent and intense, especially in the West. Cold
waves have become less frequent and intense across the nation. There have been regional
trends in floods and droughts. Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves everywhere are
projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense everywhere.
8. The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency
of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.
The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain.
Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate
continues to warm.
9. Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s, and their tracks have
shifted northward over the United States. Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity
and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being
studied intensively.
10. Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is
projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100.
11. Rising temperatures are reducing ice volume and surface extent on land, lakes, and sea. This
loss of ice is expected to continue. The Arctic Ocean is expected to become essentially ice free
in summer before mid-century.
12. The oceans are currently absorbing about a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted to the
atmosphere annually and are becoming more acidic as a result, leading to concerns about
intensifying impacts on marine ecosystems.
Message: Posted by: RNK (May 6, 2014 01:23PM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 6, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On May 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Do you understand the words "hypothesis" and "if validated"? [/quote]

Then obviously you agree that nothing has been validated.....[quote]

The difference between science and internet blogs is the level of certainty. Science is continually gathering new data and revising. Blogosphere deniers just dig their heels in and say the same thing until everyone is numb.

[quote]
Further- those who believe in Global Warming or excuse me- now Global Climate Change since they can't truly prove warming- how do you explain the recent historical periods when MAN was not around in which the climate was hotter then cooler then hotter then cooler? Obviously man had NOTHING to do with periods/epochs/era'a of climate change. Looking forward to some explanations.


RNK [/quote]

That's a pretty gruesome non sequitur. That warming and cooling have occurred in the past provides zero evidence to the proposition that industrial emissions change the atmosphere's radiative forcing.

Nobody denies that there are many natural forces at work (including ocean currents, solar energy, volcanoes and other earth-sourced airborne particles, etc. etc. etc.) The question before us is whether human industrial activity contributes to climate change. The scientific answer is that the best evidence clearly indicates that it does. The blogosphere denialist position is that it couldn't possibly be so. [/quote]

Point is the changes throughout history before man existed were more extreme than what some say is occurring today. And only some scientists support the global extremists positions while other still do not support it. There is not a 100% concurrence in science that GW is happening and it's man's fault.

RNK
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 6, 2014 01:50PM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On May 6, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 6, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On May 5, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Do you understand the words "hypothesis" and "if validated"? [/quote]

Then obviously you agree that nothing has been validated.....[quote]

The difference between science and internet blogs is the level of certainty. Science is continually gathering new data and revising. Blogosphere deniers just dig their heels in and say the same thing until everyone is numb.

[quote]
Further- those who believe in Global Warming or excuse me- now Global Climate Change since they can't truly prove warming- how do you explain the recent historical periods when MAN was not around in which the climate was hotter then cooler then hotter then cooler? Obviously man had NOTHING to do with periods/epochs/era'a of climate change. Looking forward to some explanations.


RNK [/quote]

That's a pretty gruesome non sequitur. That warming and cooling have occurred in the past provides zero evidence to the proposition that industrial emissions change the atmosphere's radiative forcing.

Nobody denies that there are many natural forces at work (including ocean currents, solar energy, volcanoes and other earth-sourced airborne particles, etc. etc. etc.) The question before us is whether human industrial activity contributes to climate change. The scientific answer is that the best evidence clearly indicates that it does. The blogosphere denialist position is that it couldn't possibly be so. [/quote]

Point is the changes throughout history before man existed were more extreme than what some say is occurring today.[/quote]


But that doesn't excuse humanity from the moral obligation of cleaning up its mess.

[quote] And only some scientists support the global extremists positions while other still do not support it. There is not a 100% concurrence in science that GW is happening and it's man's fault.

RNK [/quote]

You want 100% consensus? Where in science do you find that?

Suppose it's only 80% consensus--why are you in favour of giving 100% of the authority to 20% of the voices?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (May 6, 2014 03:03PM)
Here are raw data sources:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 6, 2014 04:23PM)
Hurricanes and climate change? Why is it during particularly high seasonal it had correlation and when lore periods happen there is no connection?

These are the things which give me pause.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (May 6, 2014 06:40PM)
Are you speaking about these raw data, Danny? There is an awful lot of information here. What are you talking about?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 6, 2014 07:21PM)
Your number 8.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 6, 2014 07:44PM)
The question before us is whether human industrial activity contributes “significantly” to climate change. Nobody denies that everything happens has some effect. Even a Raccoon farts have som effect. To say as John did “Nobody denies that there are many natural forces at work (including ocean currents, solar energy, volcanoes and other earth-sourced airborne particles, etc. etc. etc.) The question before us is whether human industrial activity contributes to climate change. The scientific answer is that the best evidence clearly indicates that it does. The blogosphere denialist position is that it couldn't possibly be so.” is not honest and honourable is it?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 6, 2014 08:31PM)
Finally. Neil Degrasse Tyson and COSMOS take on climate change deniers. The science is absolutely clear:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/cosmos-climate-change_n_5268839.html
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 6, 2014 08:40PM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, tommy wrote:
The question before us is whether human industrial activity contributes “significantly” to climate change. Nobody denies that everything happens has some effect. Even a Raccoon farts have som effect. To say as John did “Nobody denies that there are many natural forces at work (including ocean currents, solar energy, volcanoes and other earth-sourced airborne particles, etc. etc. etc.) The question before us is whether human industrial activity contributes to climate change. The scientific answer is that the best evidence clearly indicates that it does. The blogosphere denialist position is that it couldn't possibly be so.” is not honest and honourable is it? [/quote]

How so?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 6, 2014 08:50PM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Finally. Neil Degrasse Tyson and COSMOS take on climate change deniers. The science is absolutely clear:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/cosmos-climate-change_n_5268839.html [/quote]

Hardly.

My question is if it is so undeniable and so clear why does it have to be sold so hard?

Try to answer without using Koch brothers LOL.

I have to say one thing I admire about liberals is the ability to move an agenda ahead even in the face of absolute fact. Not climate change but everything they want or desire they keep pushing. Health care is a FANTASTIC example. It is no bother that it won't work, that it is hurting some people and not helping nearly the numbers they said or that it was lied about flat out. It moves the agenda forward and that is all that matters.

Re brand, re name move ahead and never look back. Claim settled science, claim victory, find victims and move forward forward forward. The agenda is what matters. They have republicans cowed. It is amazing. They spend their whole career trying to prove what they are not instead of moving forward with what they are. It is one political class.

Don't worry guys. The republicans are so cowed that the agenda of the global warming or climate change will go forward and it will be pretty easy. Don't get worried. ANY opposition will soon be crushed by their own stupidity. Congratulations. More liberal policy will soon be on the way and the world will be perfect.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 6, 2014 08:58PM)
Did you watch the Cosmos episode, Danny?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 6, 2014 09:00PM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On May 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Finally. Neil Degrasse Tyson and COSMOS take on climate change deniers. The science is absolutely clear:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/05/cosmos-climate-change_n_5268839.html [/quote]

Hardly.

My question is if it is so undeniable and so clear why does it have to be sold so hard?

Try to answer without using Koch brothers LOL.

I have to say one thing I admire about liberals is the ability to move an agenda ahead even in the face of absolute fact. Not climate change but everything they want or desire they keep pushing. Health care is a FANTASTIC example. It is no bother that it won't work, that it is hurting some people and not helping nearly the numbers they said or that it was lied about flat out. It moves the agenda forward and that is all that matters.

Re brand, re name move ahead and never look back. Claim settled science, claim victory, find victims and move forward forward forward. The agenda is what matters. They have republicans cowed. It is amazing. They spend their whole career trying to prove what they are not instead of moving forward with what they are. It is one political class.

Don't worry guys. The republicans are so cowed that the agenda of the global warming or climate change will go forward and it will be pretty easy. Don't get worried. ANY opposition will soon be crushed by their own stupidity. Congratulations. More liberal policy will soon be on the way and the world will be perfect. [/quote]

The validity of the science has nothing to do with political parties. The work is done by scientists around the world, and most of them don't have republicans or democrats to worry about.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (May 6, 2014 09:04PM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Did you watch the Cosmos episode, Danny? [/quote]

Evidently not.

Also, I think ACA is doing very well.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 6, 2014 09:19PM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Did you watch the Cosmos episode, Danny? [/quote]

It has nothing to do with my point. Liberals have the political will to push forward no matter what. Push push push. Republicans (Conservatives don't exist any more.) die on the vine. They give up.

IF liberals lose elections (Which they don't really do any more.) they get it done through judicial activism. Push push push. Bad ideas never go away. Then when they do get in power and do see an opportunity to lie their way through passage of the ACA they blame others for why it is failing.

And make no mistake Pop it is failing. But that is not relevant. IT IS HERE and nobody has what it takes to oppose them for whatever reason. They cry racist, they claim environmental Armageddon (Even if it has never happened the doomsday prophecy works!) they have all the time honored tactics trotted out and finally it looks like they will win forever. Balance of power is democratic party, and democratic party light.

It really is admirable.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 6, 2014 09:33PM)
Why is it that only the right views this as a political issue? The rest just see it as science.

Big Oil and corporate interests deny climate science because their profits are threatened.

But,really, I think you should take a look at the Cosmos episode. You can find it in the article I linked to above.

I don't think that Tyson is the least bit political.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 6, 2014 10:06PM)
It has become a political issue because of those who have attached themselves to the fight Bob and you KNOW IT.

People on BOTH SIDES use the issue to fight the political social fight and have for decades. It is better to use this movement and claim to save Polar Bears than to claim that they want to redistribute wealth. It is better to save the environment than to want redistribution and the same with health care. YOU KNOW this is true, and it is why this is a political debate. Don't pretend this is not what is happening.

I am not DENYING anything mind you. I am sad that it has come to be discussed this way.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 6, 2014 10:08PM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 6, 2014, tommy wrote:
The question before us is whether human industrial activity contributes “significantly” to climate change. Nobody denies that everything happens has some effect. Even a Raccoon farts have som effect. To say as John did “Nobody denies that there are many natural forces at work (including ocean currents, solar energy, volcanoes and other earth-sourced airborne particles, etc. etc. etc.) The question before us is whether human industrial activity contributes to climate change. The scientific answer is that the best evidence clearly indicates that it does. The blogosphere denialist position is that it couldn't possibly be so.” is not honest and honourable is it? [/quote]

How so? [/quote]


You misrepresent the position of your opposition that is how so John .

Where does your opposition claim human industrial activity does not contributes to climate change at all?
Message: Posted by: GlenD (May 7, 2014 12:25AM)
In light of all the recent clamor for the need to do something now, what I want to know is this... Someone explain to me just exactly what is supposed to happen if we reduce carbon emissions and enact regulations and taxes to "save the planet" from climate change? And what evidence should there be that it is working or being effective as predicted? In other words, what should we expect and when should we expect it? Will sea levels be corrected and reduced to where they should be? Is the global temperature going to be controlled and adjusted to where we predict it needs to be? Will natural disasters be reduced or eliminated??? If not, what are we thinking here? What is the timescale for the corrections to be effective? AND if the predicted/expected results are not evidenced, will the regulations be relaxed? Will the price increases on energy, that are sure to become reality quite soon, be reduced? These are questions that should be asked and answered with some degree of sensibility. Not just staving off the alarmist end of the world hysteria.

Glen
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 7, 2014 01:17AM)
The only alarmist hysteria is ginned up by big oil interests who fear that regulations on carbon emissions will affect the corporate bottom line. So they commission fauz "research," funded by the Koch brothers and their ilk, and use their propaganda arm (Fox) to preserve the support of the science deniers in the GOP base- the same group that believes creationism should be taught in science classes. (The fact that Koch's own research has CONFIRMED AGW isn't mentioned.)

Interesting that just a week ago, a science editor guest on Fox news was ordered, prior to his interview, not to discuss climate change.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 7, 2014 01:37AM)
Just exactly what is supposed to happen is no mystery:

In times of yore the priests would sacrifice goats and chickens on an altar in order to avert droughts or floods or earthquakes, and even the dreaded solar eclipse. With the new religion of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, led by the High Priest, His Holiness AlGore, and his acolytes in The Holy Order of AGW Grant Money Scientists, the sacrifice on their altar is Tax Money. If we sacrifice a sufficient quantity of money on the Church of AGW low-emissions altar, we can reverse the naturally cyclical global warming/climate change.

Of course they don't actually burn the Tax Money on the altar. Instead, they use it to enrich the High Priest and his acolytes, as well as the Order of Faithful Sisters of UN Bureaucrats, which greatly pleases the Climate Gods, thereby magically lowering the temperature. AGW skeptics (scientists not receiving AGW Grant Money) are guilty of blasphemy and heresy, and will be burned at a low-emission stake. While some may think the old practice of sacrificing goats and chickens was more effective and less expensive, beware the Wrath of His Holiness AlGore. They will be thrown into the Pit of Man-Bear-Pig.

- Iowa chapter 48
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 7, 2014 04:07AM)
[quote]On Jan 19, 2014, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2014-01-19 10:33, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Whose emissions have caused the most damage?

[img]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/WHdF5zhIXeDDhMHvc1RpkQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNzY7cT03OTt3PTcxNw--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-01-16/52a2c1ac-662e-4ab7-93f0-e70c73c51fc8_erl483242f1_hr.jpg[/img]

And what has caused the damage?

[img]http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/w1f.9CGK.Lg8ls9iJCSr3g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2014-01-16/5bf8bb69-f628-4749-a610-7cb5661679a1_erl483242f2_hr.jpg[/img]

From a new study. [url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/new-global-warming-data-shows-which-countries-are-most-responsible-162334607.html#kRTVRBG]News report[/url] here.

[quote]The scientific community around the world agrees: global warming is everyone's problem. But which countries have contributed to it the most? A new study from Concordia University in Montreal reveals the prime culprits - and it's not good news for Britain and the US.

The data looks at total carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature increases from 1750 to 2005, taking into account fossil fuel combustion and land-use change, as well as methane, nitrous oxide and sulphate aerosol emissions.

The team, led by Associate Professor Damon Matthews at the department of Geography, Planning and Environment, measured the percentage of temperature change that could be attributed to individual countries. They found that, since 1750, the United States has been the largest single contributor to global warming, responsible for nearly 20 per cent of the rise in average temperature.

Second in the list was China, followed by Russia, Brazil and India in the top five. Germany came in sixth, with the United Kingdom ranked seventh overall for its contribution to global warming, accounting for roughly 4.4 percent of temperature change.

The picture changed dramatically when the team calculated the contributions to global warming on a per capita basis - looking at which countries had been most responsible for a rise in temperature relative to their population.

The report found that the emissions analysed accounted for a global average temperature rise of nearly 1 degree celsius since the Industrial age, and of 0.7 degrees since 1906 - in line with previous findings that put the change at 0.74 degrees since 1906.

While the report focusses on the impact that developed countries have had on global warming, the team of scientists acknowledges that future temperature changes will depend on emerging economies adding to the current levels of emissions.

The report concludes: ' If we are to have a chance of staying below 2 °C while also addressing fundamentally important issues associated with international equity, it is imperative that developed countries do not allow their greenhouse gas emissions to continue increasing at historical rates.' [/quote]

[url=http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014010/pdf/1748-9326_9_1_014010.pdf]Original Article[/url] here.
[/quote]

If all else fails to convince people. Throw in pretty colors. That usually works. If not then make some sort of graph and throw in some sort of study by some group that supports your theory. That should close the deal. :) Oh and be sure to call the group scientific. :) [/quote]

...and when you can't argue with facts, make fun of the data.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (May 7, 2014 05:30AM)
[quote]On May 6, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On May 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Did you watch the Cosmos episode, Danny? [/quote]

It has nothing to do with my point. Liberals have the political will to push forward no matter what. Push push push. Republicans (Conservatives don't exist any more.) die on the vine. They give up.

IF liberals lose elections (Which they don't really do any more.) they get it done through judicial activism. Push push push. Bad ideas never go away. Then when they do get in power and do see an opportunity to lie their way through passage of the ACA they blame others for why it is failing.

And make no mistake Pop it is failing. But that is not relevant. IT IS HERE and nobody has what it takes to oppose them for whatever reason. They cry racist, they claim environmental Armageddon (Even if it has never happened the doomsday prophecy works!) they have all the time honored tactics trotted out and finally it looks like they will win forever. Balance of power is democratic party, and democratic party light.

It really is admirable. [/quote]


Republicans give up? Really?? Aren't they still (after 43 attempts) trying to repeal the ACA? Aren't they still "investigating" Benghazi? Didn't they get their tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010? If ANY party cows, it's usually the Democrats.

And which liberals say that the ACA is failing? How can ANYBODY (let alone liberals) make that claim at this stage of the game? The fact of the matter is that enrollment exceeded the projected 7 million mark, which bodes well for the ACA. But, only time will tell. The only ones claiming failure are those who were opposed to the ACA from the outset.


PS - National unemployment rate is now down to 6.3 percent. Dow Jones is near record levels. What happened to the complete and utter collapse of the economy under Obama that was predicted by the right back in '08, '09, '10, '11, and '12? (not so much after that though - they'd rather distract with Benghazi)


Ron
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 7, 2014 08:06AM)
Really you point to unemployment and think it is a counter? Labor participation rate is at an all time low. If it was the same unemployment would be over 9%. But why let facts bother you. Thank you for proving my point though.

And republicans have had some stupid votes for 2 years. Liberals have pushed a health care takeover for over 60. And it is not going to stop till single payer.

I never said liberals think ACA failed. None would have the decency to admit such a thing. Just plow ahead with more taxes and more control. It is the foreseeable future. Just have to get used to it.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (May 7, 2014 08:36AM)
Just as I thought, nothing the left ever tries to fix is successful and "the program" just goes on and on and on and on. Here we go with the "war on carbon" scheme, biggest black hole money pit ever! At least the big oil companies produce something, something of vital necessity for the last century or more. If you're going to be so one sided against the oil producers, then have the cajones to stop using the evil oil in all aspects of your life. Try that one on for size, then maybe you will have some credibility.

Glen
Message: Posted by: Mystification (May 7, 2014 08:38AM)
[quote]On May 7, 2014, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On May 6, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On May 6, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Did you watch the Cosmos episode, Danny? [/quote]

It has nothing to do with my point. Liberals have the political will to push forward no matter what. Push push push. Republicans (Conservatives don't exist any more.) die on the vine. They give up.

IF liberals lose elections (Which they don't really do any more.) they get it done through judicial activism. Push push push. Bad ideas never go away. Then when they do get in power and do see an opportunity to lie their way through passage of the ACA they blame others for why it is failing.

And make no mistake Pop it is failing. But that is not relevant. IT IS HERE and nobody has what it takes to oppose them for whatever reason. They cry racist, they claim environmental Armageddon (Even if it has never happened the doomsday prophecy works!) they have all the time honored tactics trotted out and finally it looks like they will win forever. Balance of power is democratic party, and democratic party light.

It really is admirable. [/quote]


Republicans give up? Really?? Aren't they still (after 43 attempts) trying to repeal the ACA? Aren't they still "investigating" Benghazi? Didn't they get their tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010? If ANY party cows, it's usually the Democrats.

And which liberals say that the ACA is failing? How can ANYBODY (let alone liberals) make that claim at this stage of the game? The fact of the matter is that enrollment exceeded the projected 7 million mark, which bodes well for the ACA. But, only time will tell. The only ones claiming failure are those who were opposed to the ACA from the outset.


PS - National unemployment rate is now down to 6.3 percent. Dow Jones is near record levels. What happened to the complete and utter collapse of the economy under Obama that was predicted by the right back in '08, '09, '10, '11, and '12? (not so much after that though - they'd rather distract with Benghazi)


Ron [/quote]

National Unemployment rate is down to 6.3 percent. However, all the unemployment rate tells us is the percentage of Americans who are filing unemployment, i.e., actively looking for a job. It doesn’t consider those who have given up looking for a job and left the workforce altogether. These people don’t have jobs and aren’t looking for jobs, but they still have to get money from somewhere, be it savings, family, or government programs. And that drains rather than contributes to the overall economy.

As far as Benghazi, even the liberals on MSNBC are not defending the lies that are so obvious from the white house. The Obama administration has been a nightmare from day one from appointing incompetent leaders to mismanagement.

I was watching an old commercial today where Obama "GUARANTEED" if he was elected President, we would never see these outrageous gas prices of $1.69 per gallon that we have under President Bush. Obama said the average hard working American shouldn't be paying that much for gas, he said it was unpatriotic. He said he would implement a comprehensive energy plan that would bring prices down. Time for us to stop letting big oil run America. Okie dokie!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 7, 2014 09:54AM)
Boys. We are talking about a GLOBAL consensus (or not) amongst SCIENTISTS. Please move your parochial political squabbling to another thread.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 7, 2014 10:26AM)
Of course. Once a point can not be countered it must be ignored. LOL.

Another classic tactic.
Message: Posted by: RNK (May 7, 2014 11:03AM)
[quote]On May 7, 2014, R.S. wrote:
[/quote]


Republicans give up? Really?? Aren't they still (after 43 attempts) trying to repeal the ACA? Aren't they still "investigating" Benghazi? Didn't they get their tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010? If ANY party cows, it's usually the Democrats.

And which liberals say that the ACA is failing? How can ANYBODY (let alone liberals) make that claim at this stage of the game? The fact of the matter is that enrollment exceeded the projected 7 million mark, which bodes well for the ACA. But, only time will tell. The only ones claiming failure are those who were opposed to the ACA from the outset.


PS - National unemployment rate is now down to 6.3 percent. Dow Jones is near record levels. What happened to the complete and utter collapse of the economy under Obama that was predicted by the right back in '08, '09, '10, '11, and '12? (not so much after that though - they'd rather distract with Benghazi)


Ron [/quote]

Unemployment is down- yes you are correct. Maybe you should check the stats of the work force- look how it has incredibly shrunk and look at the stats of the amount of people who just plain quit looking for work because they can't find it! So yes- you are correct- these factors would cause the unemployment rate to shrink significantly.


RNK
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 7, 2014 11:54AM)
I see you ignored everything else he said about the Dow, the ACA, the economic "collapse" that never happened, etc.

The bottom line is that the country is in FAR better shape than it was six years ago. And that just drives the GOP crazy. Their publicly stated goals from day one were to not cooperate with ANYTHING he proposed and to make it their first priority to insure that he would be a one term president. (That was the topic of the meeting they held on the evening of his first inauguration.)
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (May 7, 2014 12:06PM)
I like President Obama and was glad to have him as my Commander in Chief while I was serving overseas. Most members of the military are Republicans, but I consider myself independent and have voted both Democrat and Republican depending on who I think will do the best job for the country. Life has improved for my family under Obama and my wife has a much better medical insurance policy that she go through her work (and that was thanks to the ACA). I think so far, Obama has been doing a good job here recently when it comes to foreign policy, though I disagree with him making "red line" statements on Syria and then back peddling. But, at least we haven't been getting involved in foreign adventures as much and that is a huge relief too both for the taxpayers and for service-members and their families. His strategy towards Russia in regards to the Ukraine crisis seems to be the wisest approach and having some affect on Russia. I am no fan of Putin and regarded him as an adversary for some time now. However, it seems Obama is being smart in his strategy towards Russia, so I am thankful to have a President, who is overall, doing a good job on many fronts, though he has had some failures like anybody. Nobody is perfect.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 7, 2014 12:17PM)
How many people have to lose their policy so you and your wife have one you like to make it a good job?
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (May 7, 2014 12:22PM)
My policy is the VA and my wife's policy is through her work. Her policy doesn't cover everything, but it's much better than what she had before. Her's is still not quite to standard that a major medical policy should be, but regardless, still much better than what was offered before through her work (wasn't worth getting before ACA). Not only that, but many who lost their policy had sub-standard policies and they do have the option of the exchanges to get a better policy with the possibility of subsidies to help pay for them. And btw, before we decry subsidies on the exchanges to help pay for healthcare, if you have a good health insurance policy through an employer, your policy is subsidized by the government too through tax breaks given to your employer. Not only that but my wife and I have had to pay healthcare costs out of our own pocket because the only insurance policy we qualified for was very substandard and when she ended up having to go to the emergency room, we got stuck with a 6,000 dollar bill and none of it was written off because we made too much money, so, we had to pay for it out of our own pockets. Now, since ACA, my wife has much better coverage and we probably wouldn't get stuck with a bill like that under her new policy. The VA would pay for any of my emergency room visits
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 7, 2014 12:35PM)
[quote]On May 7, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Of course. Once a point can not be countered it must be ignored. LOL.

Another classic tactic. [/quote]

Who is this aimed at?
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (May 7, 2014 12:36PM)
And that 6,000 dollar bill was with the substandard health insurance policy we qualified for (the only one we qualified for at the time) and purchased beforehand, which was a pre-ACA insurance policy.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 7, 2014 12:39PM)
Who said the policy was sub standard?

Bob the full effects keep being put off until after elections. What a coincidence!

I don't really care any more. It is here to stay so people need to adapt. The new norm. Yay. Paradise is here! But if it is so great why all the lies? Are you comfortable and proud of the manipulation and lies to get it done? Is that the system we are so proud of as Americans?

And if it is so great naturally all the democrats will run on it and be swept into power in a wave! Yay paradise.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 7, 2014 12:39PM)
[quote]On May 7, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
How many people have to lose their policy so you and your wife have one you like to make it a good job? [/quote]

How many people have actually "lost" their policies, vis a vis the millions who now have insurance who didn't have it before?

And please don't include the many debunked horror stories perpetrated in Koch funded ant-ACA commercials. In those cases, most of them didn't even bother to check to see what was available on the exchanges and what subsidies they were entitled to.

Yes, substandard policies that actually didn't cover much, if anything, were cancelled after being extended for a short period. But there is far more GOP propaganda than fact out there when it comes to people supposedly losing insurance.

The bottom line is that the ACA is now succeeding beyond the initial CBO projections, fear-mongering nothwithstanding.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 7, 2014 12:41PM)
And incidently health coverage could have been improved for those who needed it without screwing those who were happy. But a power grab is what was chosen.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 7, 2014 12:43PM)
[quote]On May 7, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 7, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
How many people have to lose their policy so you and your wife have one you like to make it a good job? [/quote]

How many people have actually "lost" their policies, vis a vis the millions who now have insurance who didn't have it before?

And please don't include the many debunked horror stories perpetrated in Koch funded ant-ACA commercials. In those cases, most of them didn't even bother to check to see what was available on the exchanges and what subsidies they were entitled to.

Yes, substandard policies that actually didn't cover much, if anything, were cancelled after being extended for a short period. But there is far more GOP propaganda than fact out there when it comes to people supposedly losing insurance.

The bottom line is that the ACA is now succeeding beyond the initial CBO projections, fear-mongering nothwithstanding. [/quote]

You decry fear mongering yet THAT WAS HOW IT WAS PASSED!

You accuse the others of it but doomsday prophecy is ok to sell AGW. It doesn't pass the giggle test Bob.

Just remember IF ( And it is a big if.) The other side gains power you have given them this much power and might not like what they do with it.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 7, 2014 03:34PM)
Bob, with his piercing, wide-eyed stare, always looked like a man who was destined to lead a doomsday sect.
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (May 7, 2014 07:08PM)
Well Danny, it seems another Republican talking point on the ACA has gone down in flames:

[quote] Last week, the Republican-led House Committee on Energy and Commerce released information claiming only 67% of enrollees in insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act made their first premium payment. The data was paraded around as a talking point ahead of the Obama administration's final release of stats from the law's first open enrollment period.

On Wednesday, that talking point blew up.

Three of the country's largest insurers — Aetna, WellPoint, and Health Care Service Corp., which operates Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in several states — said between 80-90% of new customers who enrolled through Obamacare paid their first month's premiums. Executives from the companies announced the news in testimony before the very same House Committee on Energy and Commerce where Republicans touted the contrary data last week.

WellPoint said the number of customers who paid their premiums by the deadline was 90%. For Aetna, it was in the "low-to-mid 80s range." Health Care Service Corp. said their number was at least 83%.

Since the Affordable Care Act's enrollment numbers ended up better than preliminary forecasts, Republicans, who initially wanted to make attacks on Obamacare a key part of their strategy in this year's midterm elections, latched onto the possibility that a good chunk of enrollees wouldn't pay their premiums. On Wednesday, the insurance executives directly criticized the House committee's previous study.

"WellPoint was pleased to provide the committee last month with enrollment data from Oct. 1, 2013, through April 15, 2014, for states where we participate in the Federally Facilitated Exchange. As we stated to the committee at the time of submission, this data is not final and only represents a snapshot in time," said Dennis Matheis, the vice president of exchange strategies at WellPoint.

" As outlined in our prior submissions to the Subcommittee, these are dynamic figures and do not reflect final enrollment numbers," added Paul Wingle, the executive director of exchange operations and strategy at Aetna.

Insurers and health-policy observers blasted the House GOP's study upon its release last week, saying it was based on incomplete data — specifically from plans whose premium deadlines had not passed when the committee sent out its survey.

The committee surveyed insurers for the total number of enrollments and premium payments as of April 15. That number, insurers said Wednesday, was about 70%. However, the surge in April enrollment was not reflected. Almost 1 million plan enrollments occurred in April after the Obama administration extended the sign-up deadline for people who had already started the process. For those people, the first premium payment wasn't due on April 15, but the committee counted them as unpaid enrollees.

In essence, the House GOP's talking point will only be true if virtually none of the enrollees in April pay their premiums. That doesn't seem likely, given that insurers reported a steady premium payment percentage throughout the year. [/quote]

I am beginning to wonder if the Republicans will be able to effectively use the ACA as an issue to get elected or re-elected.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gops-latest-anti-obamacare-talking-213658327.html
Message: Posted by: R.S. (May 7, 2014 08:15PM)
[quote]On May 7, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On May 7, 2014, R.S. wrote:
[/quote]


Republicans give up? Really?? Aren't they still (after 43 attempts) trying to repeal the ACA? Aren't they still "investigating" Benghazi? Didn't they get their tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010? If ANY party cows, it's usually the Democrats.

And which liberals say that the ACA is failing? How can ANYBODY (let alone liberals) make that claim at this stage of the game? The fact of the matter is that enrollment exceeded the projected 7 million mark, which bodes well for the ACA. But, only time will tell. The only ones claiming failure are those who were opposed to the ACA from the outset.


PS - National unemployment rate is now down to 6.3 percent. Dow Jones is near record levels. What happened to the complete and utter collapse of the economy under Obama that was predicted by the right back in '08, '09, '10, '11, and '12? (not so much after that though - they'd rather distract with Benghazi)


Ron [/quote]

Unemployment is down- yes you are correct. Maybe you should check the stats of the work force- look how it has incredibly shrunk and look at the stats of the amount of people who just plain quit looking for work because they can't find it! So yes- you are correct- these factors would cause the unemployment rate to shrink significantly.


RNK [/quote]


The BLS (NOT the Obama administration, as some on the right would have you believe) compiles the figures for the unemployment rate and the workforce. And it is a fact that when Obama took office the unemployment rate was at 7.8 percent and rising. Today, that upward trending 7.8 percent that Obama inherited is down (DOWN) to 6.3 percent. This is a good thing (you can bet that if a Republican was president, FOX News would be trumpeting this fact 24/7). The BLS computes the unemployment rate the same way now as they did in 2009 and every year before that. As far as the labor force, here are the statistics going back to 2004. As you can see, it has not "incredibly shrunk" - rather, it has [I]increased[/I].

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref1

We still have a ways to go, but there can be no denying th