Stop Al Gore and the eco-taxers
Al Gore wants to create his own green “1984.” CEI hurls a sledgehammer at the eco-tax-and-spenders with a new ad campaign. Watch and spread the word:
NTU has a petition: Tell Congress to Oppose $2 Trillion Climate Tax!
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Electric Cars in China May Be Worse for the Environment Than Gas-Powered Cars
February 13, 2012 04:21 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Reminder: Global Warming Still Going to Cause Chocolate Shortage
February 11, 2012 02:31 PM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
CPAC vs. the Occupiers: Keep calm and carry silly string
February 9, 2012 10:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
109 Comments
Concrete Evidence Man is Causing Glacier Retreat
February 2, 2012 03:07 PM by Doug Powers
68 Comments
E-mail of the day: Media Matters coordinates with Capitol Hill “allies” on Keystone XL; Plus: 20,000 jobs “is not that many”
January 25, 2012 11:23 PM by Michelle Malkin
86 CommentsObama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments
Obama Admin. Rejects Keystone Pipeline; TransCanada Can Reapply After Finding Alternate Route; Updated
January 18, 2012 12:13 PM by Doug Powers
159 Comments
Categories: Enviro-nitwits,Tea Party
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
They also manufacture wind turbines.
So does being a math teacher, but that hasn’t stopped lgm.
lgm won’t ever answer any question put directly to him…
He’s too busy making ridiculous asides in another thread already…
Exactly.
The talk of the corruption of “Big Oil” is yet more projection by the Democrat[ic Socialist]s.
Let’s talk about the corruption of “Big Green”.
Nancy Pelosi has her own culture of corruption issues in this area…
Speaker
PutinPelosi’s “Big Wind“.Or, perhaps, Pelosi is “Cutting It“?
Ragspierre said:
At first, yes. That was settled the way scientific issues should be. The sides got together, examined the evidence, and argued a lot. Eventually there was a scientific consensus.
That’s what happened in climate forecasting. At first the global warming people got a cold reception (intended). But after decades of arguing and evidence gathering, there is a consensus in favor of global warming.
The only difference is that today it’s oil companies obfuscating the scientific facts, not the owners of the public baths (read Ibsen’s “Public Enemy”, or possibly “Enemy of the People”).
Link to “global cooling” article from Time magazine in 1974:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
Getting a whole bunch of people who already agree with each other in a room and excluding all others does not make a “consensus”. It makes for a lie. BTW how do you explain that the antartic had the most ice coverage in its recorded history last year?
….. never mind. the orthodoxy has spoken.
WRONG again. In the 70′s it was cooling – an oncoming ice age. We needed to warm the planet (see my previous post for links if you dare).
There is NO “consensus in favor of global warming” only global taxing.
Yo, idiot. You do know that Greenland used to be green before all of that ice was there and there was not an additional 20 feet of water covering the planet – right? You know it may be green again.
Check out the Lost Squadron WWII planes crash on Greenland and over the next few decades they are buried under 200+ feet of ice without the oceans receding 20 feet.
What do you make of that?
P.S. idiot.
The reason Al Gore and others are compared to Hitler (as you were) is if you repeat a lie long enough you can get idiots to believe it. The bigger the lie, the easier it is to get idiots to believe it.
Paraphrasing Hitler
You are living proof of that fact. You keep repeating “consensus” because you heard it. It is just not true. Blindmule had you spot on.
conservativesRus:
x: you are capable of typing a comment on a blog.
y: you are a human being.
based on x, we postulate y.
Seems pretty “unassailable” to me.
Radioactive decay occurs via a predictable process which adheres to natural laws. It goes something like this:
Half of an isotope will decay over a period of time. This time period has been measured for various isotopes and it is consistent. One can examine a rock and note it’s different concentrations of an isotope and what it decays into. There is the difficulty of contamination, however those inaccuracies can be alleviated by increasing the size and number of samples. Finally, mathematical equations are applied to calculate how much time has passed to reach the relevant level of decay.
Radiometric dating is every bit as factual as the idea that the Earth is round. The evidence is overwhelming and consistent. Not only do the oldest rocks on Earth provide evidence that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, samples taken from the moon and meteorites confirm this number.
When conservatives resort to arguments against hard science they weaken our position.
This is why a serious discussion about global warming is impossible. The issue has been so politicized at this point that a real honest examination of the data (or lack thereof) and the accuracy of the models is impossible. The main arguments for Global Warming are based on computer simulated models, our rather limited (as englishqueen pointed out earlier) historical data, and things like temperature estimates and CO2 concentrations from ice cores. Just like the weather reports, these massive models have so many variables, it is hard to get completely accurate predictions.
No one disputes that green house gases cause Global Warming. As such, human activity naturally effects it, but one question is, just how much?
In any case, the real issue is not whether or not Global Warming occurs. The real issue is, “to what extent do we affect it and how much should we even care?”
PS. I have also noticed some people here resorting to the claim that “scientists” continued to adhere to a geocentric view of the solar system after it had become apparent that a heliocentric view was a better fit to the data.
Honestly, you all must know how disingenuous this is. It was the church that condemned Galileo as a heretic, not “scientists.” You cannot honestly claim otherwise.
LGM, I have a “what if” to ask you.
You state that scientific consensus is that GW is caused by man, specifically CO2 output I assume. You state that this consensus was arrived at after much debate.
What if the current consensus is transistional, not terminal? What if new facts change the debate tomorrow?
You may know where I’m going with this: I have read several reports online recently stating that solar output is at a low. Along with that, NASA’s temp chart link (I can get if if you wish) show temps leveling off and even falling. At the same time, CO2 output continues to increase.
Taken together I would conclude that CO2 is not the cause of GW, but that solar output is. (Theorizing about radiative forcing notwithstanding).
So, is there any reason to believe that the consensus is right?
BTW: with all the research dollars flowing into institute and university coffers for GW, don’t talk to us about money being involved. GW alarmists have just as much vested interest in their view as others have. At least people on the payroll of oil companies are likely honest about their motives.
Utter nonsense…consensus is stupid…and has never been part of the scientific method. Except the empty heads of the lefties…..and Al.
You don’t “examine” the evidence…you perform an experiment, collect data and come to a conclusion. After that, you publish and wait for someone else to duplicate your results….lgm, if you had ever been even remotely around any type of science, you would be laughed off the set if you even uttered the word “consensus”….Gawd..I have no patience for stupidity…
Zero, it was Copernicus that formulated the theory.
And people thought the earth was the center of the universe long before there was a church to condemn anyone.
SHoward:
A valid point; the answer you will get is that the models take that into account and are accurate. They are still models based on an incredibly chaotic system and as such, I am not sure how reliable they are.
But really, what does it all come down to?
Should the US limit it’s greenhouse emissions whilst nations like China happily laugh in our faces and claim “developing nation” status?
Perhaps we should all go live in caves to save the polar bear?
It’s insanely stupid things like that; combined with statements like “how do we know the earth is 4.54 billion years old?”; that prevent a real and serious debate on the topic.
SHoward:
Yes, I know it was Copernicus that started it. That doesn’t change what happened to Galieo.
Your second statement doesn’t change a thing. To blame “scientists” for rejection of the heliocentric view of the solar system is dishonest.
“Scientists” like Galieo were the ones pushing it.
al the gore’s scam continues. he’s told the lie so much he now believes it.
SHoward:
To be clear, #113 is a reply to #110 and #114 is a reply to #112.
Thank you.
algore is one arrogant jerk. That millions of Americans believe that carny barking fool is heartbreaking. But it is a bigger war we fight, far bigger than any one or any collection of issues.
Illicit Power of the State is to be resisted by any means necessary. algore is but one more Reichsfuhrer to be held accountable. How many of us they get first is to be seen. Hussein Obama is speaking at ASUs graduation tonight so the police and SS are shutting down most of Tempe. Oh great. In protest I am going to charge my iPod and drown a polar bear! That will teach them.
—
The Patriotic Resistance
But it is getting warmer out here in the Rocky Mts……uhhh, oh yes, it is getting near summer..never mind.
Only in your bizzaro world of religion aping science.
Why does Gore seek to silence scientific voices and evidence that runs counter to the braying of global warming alarmists?
Why do you seek to minimalize and demonize scientists with anti-warming evidence and data as tools of “big oil”?
The reason is you cannot allow their evidence to be presented. I gores (pun intended) your sacred cow.
It is heresy to your religion.
Zero, I saw which post went with which, thanks.
I don’t intend any discussion on earth age, as this post is about GW. And we are likely in pretty good agreement about that. Does it occur? You can’t argue with the thermometer. Is it CO2? You can’t argue with the thermometer.
Absolutely other nations continue ot belch it out, so our reduction does little good. I also doubt it is th cause anyway, due to the fact that it ocntinues to be belched out (actually increasing while temps decreasing).
As for ancient “scientists,” you have to remember that in the old days science and religion, philosophy, politics, etc. weren’t really considered separate by many. In fact it wasn’t until people like galileo, copernicus, et al that scientists began to distinguish themselves from the others.
Alas, that is kind of a minor thing, I’ll grant you. We are really talking about today. My answer to our current dilemma remains the same: the debate can easily change, and I wonder how many current scientists are clinging to the AGW theory because they know what it would mean to their jobs if they admitted the theory isn’t accurate.
As for living in caves, I think that’s exactly what some of the lefist enviro-wackjobs would like.
The hippies will not stop until we all smell as bad as they do.
SHoward:
My main objection WRT the heliocentric vs. geocentric thing really goes to a larger argument I’ve seen repeated several times now. That argument is as follows:
Man-made GW proponent says:
It is a scientific consensus!
GW skeptic says:
It used to be a consensus that x, but that was proved wrong! Therefore y could be proved wrong too!
The skeptic should not take this approach. It holds no weight as an argument because it’s a double-edged sword that can be applied to almost anything. I think you know what I mean.
The better approach would be to question the accuracy of the models and the solution methods proposed.
There you go again you lying PO* – WHO? WHO are the people in your so-called ‘consensus’. I gave you a list of hundred scientists, mostly PhD’s, who are declaring that there is NOTHING to be alarmed about, that there’s been NO NET WARMING FOR A DECADE, and that the computer models that YOU and your damned ‘consensus’ of people you refuse to NAME have put 100% FAITH in being correct, have totally FAILED to explain WHY it stopped warming.
I named names lgm. Can YOU?
I should say above (to be more accurate):
instead of..
Gee lgm, I wonder what the Catlin Arctic Survey team would be screaming about right now if they couldn’t proceed any further to the north pole because the ice was too thin?
The USS Skate surfaced in OPEN WATER AT THE NORTH POLE, March 17,1959
Well, that method was used.
It gave us the theory of spontaneous generation.
It gave us the geocentric theory of the solar system.
It gave us the theory that disease was caused by “bad airs”.
Happily, that method has been put aside by anyone who remotely may lay claim to rational thought.
As norm1111 pointed out, the scientific method has supplanted the “we’ll get together and form a consensus method”.
Which, up to recently, had us on a steady upward trend toward a higher standard of living, longer, healthier life, etc.
But, if we give heed to Gore’s kind, we will enter a new dark age, and rational thought will be replaced by the sort of witchcraft Gore champions.
I guess that the polar bears that were there back then must have all drown huh?
Good points, Zero. Although I still think it has some merit to remind folks that just because someone with a set of degrees says something doesn’t make it true. Hopefully, that gets someone on the other side to open their mind to the possibility that the current scientists could be mistaken.
Although we may disagree concerning carbon-containing gases causing warming.
I know they can retain heat, and that has been proven. The question is whether or not they actually retain any in the atmosphere. The concentration has to be fairly high to absorb any heat, and it isn’t in the atmosphere.
My final thing concerns something we both realize: CO2 output is actually increasing globally. I looked at the temp charts over at Nasa’s website recently and it was going sideways, not up. If CO2 were a cause, it should logically be going up.
Rags et al.:
I think the point that is important to drive home is that argumentum ad populum in and of itself is unconvincing.
I think I more or less made this point above though.
LGM:
I would really like to know detailed information on the computer models they use and why we should consider it as much more valid then models used to predict the weather in the short term and on a micro level (I do realize we do a pretty good job of that).
Unfortunately, I also realize the models are vast and a certain degree of trust in the scientific method and objectivity of scientists is required. It would be easier to do this if the models didn’t seem so “nebulous.”
For me though, whether or not we do effect global warming is only part of the issue. So what if we do? To what extent should we care and how will we deal with nations that would purposely flaunt the rules?
SHoward:
Yes, an appeal to authority is also unconvincing.
Do we? I am not saying it’s the only cause (#124), I think I may have given the wrong impression earlier. That said; it’s entirely possible that CO2 is indeed rising, but other factors are having a different net effect. I am almost certain that there is no question greenhouse gases retain heat. Isn’t that the reason why Venus is an inferno?
Rationally, we know that a middling volcanic eruption (of the right kind) produces more CO2 than has been released by all man’s activities since history began.
What data do we have in our experience of volcanic eruptions that shows a period of global warming that corresponds to the volcanic event?
None.
Duh….
Actually, it stinks. In my area, a 10 day forecast is virtually useless.
Rags:
*smile*. touche.
The fact is there are just so many factors it’s hard to nail down. Case in point, your volcano example: while it is possible that CO2 released will have a warming effect, it is also possible that the particulate matter released would block out the sun’s rays to some extent.
I am really just spinning my wheels here though. Truth is, the varibles are just so mind-boggling I am just curious as to where they even begin!
We’re pretty much on the same page, Zero. I thought so from your earlier posts. We just have some minor differences of opinion on some finer points, I would say.
Concerning LGM, I have asked for links from him in this thread and others, and haven’t seen any. My own resarch hasn’t revealed much that would really support AGW, except ‘consensus.’
As has been pointed out by others today, conensus isn’t a conclusive set of facts, just a conglomerate of opinions.
Zero;
We do know that the volcanic event that blew apart the island (whose name I can’t recall) led to The Year Without Summer, which was a factor in the writing of Frankenstein.
The particulate matter was, pretty clearly, the cause of the global cooling.
We know that particulate matter settles out of the atmosphere at varying rates. But settle it does.
What happened to all that CO2? Why did it cause no attributable increase in global temperatures?
lgm, you don’t understand enough science to debate me on this issue.
Now, this is your final warning. I’ve given you plenty of time to switch sides in this debate. From now on, I will hold you responsible for all your AGW comments. Your name and picture will be posted on my Global Warming Hall of Shame so you will be forever embarrassed by your stupid comments.
SHoward:
“Scientific consensus” isn’t necessarily invalid, of course. There is a consensus that the Earth is round (for example) and that relativity accurately represents cosmological facts.
I thing part of my problem here is its one thing to form a model to explain how something happened in the past. It’s quite another to try and predict the future especially when the model is so nebulous.
We should though, be careful that we don’t appear openly contemptuous of science; that would be ridiculous. Some posters here (not you) seem to be following that route.
Rags:
I think you’ll find that we more or less agree on this matter that the models and the solutions are not good enough to base policy on.
What?
I haven’t read any comments “contemptuous of science.”
However, many seem contemptuous, and rightfully so, of scientists that make overreaching claims.
corkie:
You’ll find at least one comment that I referred to earlier that questioned the established age of the Earth.
Furthermore, the double-edged sword argument of “scientists can never make up their mind!” seems pretty contemptuous (and logically unsound) to me.
Whether or not we have “consensus”…”scientific” or otherwise…we have empirical evidence of the shape of the earth (which is really sort of oblong…and may have some influence on some of us).
Sometimes, empirical evidence…including a series of valid, duplicate experiments that yield verifiable results…leads us to move “scientific theory” to the level of “law”.
Are you implying that questioning the method and level of confidence in determining the age of the Earth is equivalent to contempt for science? Stretch much?
What double edged sword????? A scientist isn’t criticized for limiting her conclusions to those supported by the data AND qualifying the confidence of such conclusions.
Rags:
We don’t disagree here. You might find this useful though:
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law
It’s just a start, first thing that came up on a yahoo search. There is often a degree of confusion due to the scientific meaning of a theory as opposed to the colloquial one.
In short, “theories” never become elevated to “law.” They are different things entirely.
corkie:
Yes, I am. You might as well be questioning whether or not the Earth is round.
It’s unfortunate that pictures of radioactive decay occurring only appear as little dots. If we had something a little more “friendly” other than concrete math equations, perhaps it wouldn’t be so hard for people to see the plain facts.
#112.
Actually, this might sound silly, but I think the term “retard cooling” is more accurate than “retain heat.”
There is no mechanism by which GGs are capable of retaining the heat of a planet (other than temporarily).
Now, that being said, I’m still struggling with the whole global warming mechanism. Water vapor is the most “effective” GG, yet a dry location (e.g. a desert) experiences much higher surface temperatures than a humid location (e.g. the tropics). Can anyone resolve this issue for me?
corkie:
To clarify: If you are going to quibble over millions or thousands of years. OK, fine.
I have before seen arguments for 6000 years (though not in this thread). That is absurd.
corkie:
It’s not silly at all. IIRC, that is accurate. Heat is the result of molecules bouncing around and/or vibrating. “Cooling” is when they slow down. Granted, this is not my area of expertise.
Per your question, I am unsure, but I really need to run. Perhaps later.
Hmmm… My education…and I guess my nomenclature…pre-dates yours.
A “scientific law” in my day was a perfectly valid expression of something that had been thoroughly tested and proven by the scientific method, and by application. It included, for instance, “gas law” and various others.
I guess I’m an old guy…
First, you’re crazy to compare the two. But, it still wouldn’t be contemptuous of science to question the evidence you used to conclude that the earth was round and your confidence level in your conclusion. I assume that video from space would be part of your mountain of evidence and that your confidence level would be quite high. I further assume that very few could cast much doubt on your evidence and that nearly all would support your conclusion. Second, you are crazy if you don’t believe that each scientific conclusion can be scrutinized in like manner with varying results.
No.
Maybe so. But don’t accuse someone for having contempt for science simply because they don’t believe one conclusion.
After all, plenty of AGWers refuse to believe that anthropogenic CO2 isn’t causing global warming. But I don’t accuse them of having contempt for science nor will I even after all the scientists agree.
Testing, testing…
Actually, you shouldn’t scientifically use the word “heat” as a noun in this context, but I appreciate the effort you’re trying to make.
Maybe we can discuss further another time.
Corkie;
I tried to answer your question, but got blocked. Nothing in my post was the least offensive.
Specific heat of water, versus air.
I can’t put up my explanation…!!! This sucks.
Actually, my #140 questions were for zeroangel.
I should have specified. My apologies.
Wait, are you attempting to answer my desert question? If so, please try again!
Air gains and gives up heat very readily.
Water vapor in air acts strongly as a buffer for both heat gain and loss.
Thus, in an area precisely as far from the Equator that is dominated by humid air, both the high and low temperature will be less extreme than that in a desert area.
zeroangel said (#129):
Great question. Maybe brilliant scientist corkie (see below) can answer. The reason is that weather is chaotic. Details are harder to predict than long term averages that determine climate. We can estimate the average rainfall or temperature without knowing which days will be rainy or hot. Think of a dripping faucet. We can know that average flow rate — gallons per day — even though the actual drips are irregular.
corkie said (#135):
That may be. Let’s find out. Do you know why radiation coming in to the earth tends to be shorter wavelengths than radiation going away?
For those asking for links: just google “global warming”. You’ll get all the explanations, the references to scientific consensus (professional societies, National Academy of Sciences). You could start at wikipedia. My posting a link will not raise you out of the echo sewer. You have to want to come above ground.
I can’t say “Black-Body Radiation”…????
corkie:
I think it’s a bit silly to argue over a subjective idea of exactly what constitutes “crazy.”
That said:
Do you think the Earth is 6000 years old? Are you merely supposing that it could be 4.3 billion as opposed to 4.54 billion? Do you take issue with the various methods to obtain the figure of 4.54 billion? Is so, which ones and why?
No what?
Oh come on. Of course you know where things are headed when people start to say things like, “how do we know the Earth is such and such billions of years old?” It heads head-long into a YEC argument; nearly every time, without fail, esp. on this blog. They are almost never concerned with nailing down a more accurate figure because really, 4.54, 4.4, 3.9, how much difference would that really make?
OK, going out with the wife. TTYL.
PS. WRT your other question concerning deserts I humbly suggest doing some research on the matter and letting us know what you find out. I would like to know myself, but I have other things to do currently.
It is you who are in the echo sewer. You are merely mouthing the same orthodoxy you have swallowed from your brother Leftist Luddite loonies.
I have a couple of questions for the CO2 caused global warming proponents:
1. If CO2 levels are too high, what precisely is the correct level?
2. If the current level of CO2 falls below the correct level, does that necessarily result in global cooling?
3. Doesn’t water vapor result in some degree of heat retention? And at the same time, doesn’t water vapor tend to insulate the surface from solar radiation and hence have a cooling effect?
4. If CO2 is responsible for warming and man-made CO2 is the proximate cause, what would be the exact effect of zero man-made CO2? How do you know?
If every source of man-made CO2 were eliminated, would it be beneficial to humans or detrimental?
5. If global warming is bad, what is global cooling? Which will kill more people – a warmer planet, or a colder one?
6. What is the precise role of nitrogen in global warming, if any? Oxygen? Argon?
I can probably think up a dozen more, but these will give you something to chew on for a while.
One more before I go:
LGM:
Yes, of course I realize this. It still seems such a massive model and I am uncomfortable basing public policy on something so nebulous.
I will openly admit that my own unfamiliarity with the exact composition of the models makes me a bit skeptical. However, it’s not the only consideration as I mentioned before. The larger issue is to what extent we should take action and how to deal with nations that would flaunt the rules?
LGM:
I used the micro-level not so much because it relates to the larger issue of climate change on a macro-level but because it too is a massive model with many varibles.
YES. OF COURSE I KNOW THAT!!!!
Besides, you don’t want to go there. Don’t you remember how I embarrassed you back in Dec 2007?
Are you in elementary school? Aren’t you at least smart enough to recognize that the few of us remaining on this thread are beyond your knowledge level of this subject matter?
Don’t feel bad. It’s impossible to know. The modelers keep their assumptions secret. It’s not difficult to guess why.
Every time I look at Al Bore, I feel the need to cross myself (and I’m not even Catholic!) Just look into his eyes. There is nothing behind them. He is a vacant shell posing as a human. If ever there was a case for aliens walking amongst us, he is it.
I appreciate the effort, but that doesn’t answer my question.
It explains Day 1. But what about Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4? Why wouldn’t the water vapor (a very effective GG) retard cooling at night enough to cause the daytime surface temperatures to rise higher in humid areas than desert areas?
Off topic…Is there a way to go back and read every single post one person has put on these threads?? Does anyone know? I know I used to be able to do that over at LGF, but can’t figure out if MM has that feature or not.
No.
No. But I could probably reach a conclusion based on scientific evidence presented to me.
Maybe, I’d have to individually scrutinize them.
Have you reached a conclusion regarding the age of the earth? If so, do you consider your conclusion fact? If not, how confident are you?
Your link was meaningless. Therefore, I provided an equally meaningless response.
Please. I knew exactly where you were going with this. So what? Why do you care if they have YEC beliefs? Why do you care if they’ve been sold on scientific claims that support YEC regardless of the strength of those claims?
You can’t tell me that there haven’t been enough bogus scientific claims made in the world to justify being skeptical. That doesn’t mean a skeptic holds science in contempt. It merely means that they hold people in contempt.
Look at the AGWer’s. What’s the first statement they make about any scientific claims which don’t support AGW? Read lgm’s stupid comments to see the answer. They hold the claims in contempt because they think it’s politically motivated. They simply dismiss the claims universally in order to cling to their AGW religion. How is that any different from a YECer that doesn’t trust differing claims? Why is one group considered to embrace science while the other is considered to reject it?
I have a question for you, lgm. Do you understand Detailed Balance?
Nevermind. You already proved that you don’t.
Reminder: It was the principle you incorrectly applied to your last little quiz. HA!
corkie:
Yes. I consider it a fact that the Earth is approximately 4 billion years old. I consider this a fact in the same way I consider it a fact that the Earth is round. I understand enough of the relevant science to understand this much is certain.
WRT to my link: It read #112. Sorry it should read #122. The link should work though.
What exactly is meaningless about saying you can use the “science was wrong before” argument to say anything? You can. It doesn’t mean that one day the Earth will be found to be hexagonal.
YEC is stupid and isn’t science. It is every bit as stupid as saying the Earth is flat. I care because I don’t want my fellow Americans believing in stupid things and thinking it has any basis at all in science fact.
They are contemptuous of science because they flatly reject empirical facts. If that isn’t contemptuous of science and the scientific method I don’t know what is.
The difference between YEC and GW is that YEC flies right in the face of empirical facts. GW is a nebulous model that tries to predict a chaotic system. It’s one thing to try and model chaotic patterns, it’s quite another to just reject radiometric dating.
I’m LOVING this!
So are you claiming that weather is chaotic, but climate isn’t?
What if the drips are 100 years apart on average? What if the drips are 1,000 years apart? Could you detect and predict a decadal trend? A centurial trend?
Telling.
No.
Objectively, you are crazy.
Certainly you’re smart enough to understand the difference between rejecting empirical evidence and rejecting the presentation of empirical evidence? Right? Otherwise, we really don’t have anywhere to go from here and don’t bother reading the next paragraph.
You didn’t read my point carefully. Concentrate. I wasn’t comparing YECers rejecting the presentation of empirical evidence to AGW skeptics. I was comparing them to AGWers that reject the presentation of empirical evidence which does NOT support AGW. There is no difference. Do not attempt to imply otherwise.
Aw gee, and I was hoping to learn something about global warming tonight. Oh well, time to go shopping.
corkie:
Unless you take YEC seriously or you think there is enough evidence for AGW to base public policy on it, we have no issues here.
Do you think YEC deserves any serious consideration at all or do you think (as I do) that it deserves to be laughed at since it flatly rejects facts?
I wish those who believe in the theory of AGW whould comes to terms that their belief is VERY MUCH one more of faith than science. The reason I say that is that they REFUSE to state what condition, what data or what experiment – something – that they would accept as PROOF that the theory is WRONG? I and others have stated repeatedly that the computer models from the IPCC and NASA that appeared to predict global warming through the 90′s as a function of CO2 concentration have FAILED to predict the current cooling trend we’ve been on since 2001. ** CO2 has continued going up but temperatures are falling,** sea level rise has slowed, **glaciers are accelerating ** the ocean has been cooling for 5 years
All this empirical evidence showing AGW is BS but STILL they cling to their faith that “humans are destroying the planet” and ALL because someone’s precious computer model told them so. That IS all they have, computer models. (garbage in – garbage out I always say).
ALL scientific theories MUST have some means by which they can be falsified. That is the underpinning of all science. If there is no means to disprove a theory – THEN IT IS NOT A THEORY!!!… it is a religion.
So come on AGW faithful, state what it would take to change YOUR mind? Show us just how absurd you can be.
From the last link above concerning ocean heat deficit:
You’ve got as much chance of that as you do of convincing them that Obama is Kenyan, or I do of getting any answers to my list of questions.
zeroangel said (#163):
Fair enough. Simple is better than complicated and certainty is better than suspicion. But think of a doctor with a patient who has an 80% chance of having a serious condition that requires painful surgery. The consequences of not acting on likely but not certain condition are even more serious than the consequences of acting.
corkie said (#165):
Prove it.
corkie said (#171):
I stand by what I said then. Detailed balance (as I was clearly usingthe term) is a relation between absorption and emission coefficients that is derived by thinking of a closed system but applies in general.
corkie said (#173):
It has to do with time scales. 100 years is a long time for weather and a short time for climate change. We’re not trying to predict the climate 1000 years from now.
Are you attempting to probability weight AGW? Try 5%. And no surgery is free from risk.
No. And I will not prove I understand algebra either.
Ha ha. Go ahead and stand by it. You completely misapplied detailed balance. There is no ‘balance’ in an open energy system.
Tell us, lgm. What are we trying to predict?
Maybe you should just stick to business math.
No.
No.
What is and isn’t accepted as fact is subjective.
“Scientists” making overreaching claims are much more harmful to the world than a group of people believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Surely you can’t be saying that you would laugh at me because I think Jesus was the Son of G-d?
LGM, I have a question.
I understand the arguements put forth regarding the amount of energy reaching the earth vs. the amount leaving, and I of course understand that many things on earth absorb said energy. Here’s the problem:
If the temperatures are going down even as CO2 concentration is going up, and ice formation is increasing, as well as ocean temperatures decreasing, How is the net energy retained by the earth causing global warming?
What I am implying is that the theory may appear sound, but the observed data does not support it. If I’m incorrect about the data, please demonstrate.
corkie:
So, YEC shouldn’t be taken seriously but doesn’t deserve to be laughed at?
Huh?
What other ideas do you think shouldn’t be taken seriously and yet not laughed at?
Can I laugh at flat-earthers?
Earth is flat. Subjective or not?
There is nothing over-reaching about radiometric dating. It is extremely solid science.
LGM:
I certainly see where you are going with this.
The problem, as I was saying before, is that this painful surgery might necessarily require that different parts of the body suffer more than others. The parts that suffer less will likely seek to undermine the surgery in effort to advance their own economy.
Let’s step outside the analogy. Why should the US bother with measures that could possibly cripple it’s economy while any progress that is made will merely be undermined by China.
I am content to wait until we can build atmospheric processors and the whole issue becomes a moot point.
Oh, and f*ck polar beers. How do they taste anyway?
spaceycakes:
Your belief in Jesus being the son of god is a necessary part of your belief that you will live forever. As such, laughing at you would be cruel, and I won’t do it, especially considering many of my family members have similar beliefs. However, the problem then becomes that you can’t laugh at someone that thinks they can channel the dead through a crystal ball either.
Oh, I’m not saying that I don’t laugh. LOL
Mine taste great. I drink them right out of the freezer, thus avoiding a trip to Alaska.
On a more serious note, I think the issue is more accurately defined as “Does the observed data support the theory” of GW. I don’t agree that it does. Thus, no need to do any backflips making ourselves greener.
As for ‘atmospheric processors,’ a while back Glenn Beck exposed that an individual had created a processor which could remove an incredible amount of CO2 from the atmosphere annually. The greens didn’t want to use them because it would allow us to conitnue using oil. Hence, there really is an agenda on the green left.
Does anyone know where Stephen Hawking stands on AGW?
If he’s advocates it, then doesn’t that negate his whole “expanding universe” theory? (A theory which pretty much says the entire universe is heating as it spreads but once it reaches its limits of growth, will cool as it shrinks into oblivion.)
Or has he simply revised the theory?
BTW, it’s been years since I’ve had physical science but this thread has been great – a little technical w/ the language, but very informative and challenging – especially Corkie and ZA!
DBNinKY:
I don’t know where Stephen Hawkin stands on AGW but it most assuredly has absolutely nothing to do with cosmology.
It would be like trying to compare what goes on in your oven to the weather in your state. Actually, much more absurd than that as the scales are so vastly different.
But what I’m saying is if the universe as a whole is heating, then is it not logical to assume that our planet is heating in response, and not because of AGW? Just a lay (I majored in ed/ math & bio) asking -
BTW – I may have to get back to work at any minute, so if I don’t respond immediately, I’ll still be reading.
I went back and read through corkie’s comments curious as to what was found to be interesting.
I missed this earlier:
That is true, however, there is a constant source of heat, the sun. So GGs might retain any heat generated at any given moment only temporarily, but the net effect is cumulative. Venus demonstrates this nicely.
None of this “proves” AGW, however.
DBNinKY:
The scales are so incredibly different. The local effects at the level of our planet are so vastly disconnected both in terms of time and scale. Any cosmological effect should be so miniscule as to be insignificant. As I said, imagine the Earth as your oven. Then imagine the state you live in as the universe.
Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to say, for example:
It is an average of one degree hotter in our state then it was yesterday, therefore, that is why my oven is now at 450 degrees when yesterday it was only 70 degrees.
The oven is hot because it was turned on and any effect from the weather outside is completely negligible.
Similarly, global warming could result from a variety of factors to include the sun, cyclic climate change, etc. Cosmological effects can be safely dismissed.
ALCON:
One more thing; speaking of how any real debate is impossible on the topic, let’s look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow
Such tripe! Honestly, LGM, that movie must have pissed you off as well. It might as well have just spat in the face of any hard working scientist. Ignorance and stupidity abound.
Homeopathic remedies, Buddhism, and thousands of other ideas.
Overall, you’re seeing everything as much too black and white. You definitely lack the ability to accurately see in grey scale.
Never stated otherwise.
Now, there are far too many over reaching scientists in this world. That’s who you should laugh at.
Is it cumulative? You stated that as FACT yet you didn’t have the confidence to answer my question about desert versus humid areas.
If adding GG had a cumulative effect, then humid areas should have higher high temps than desert areas. Right?
I think I’m starting to understand the low threshold you use for declaring, “fact.”
But the sun’s output is not constant and neither is our distance from the sun.
corkie:
Laughed at. Do you know what they call “alternative medicine” when they find out it works?
Medicine.
Gray is one thing. Gray is 4.3 billion as opposed to 4.54 billion. 6000 is not gray, it’s stupid, plain and simple.
To be honest, I didn’t really read or pay that much attention to your question earlier. My wife and I were just turning on a movie at the time. I figured you could find the answer on your own on wiki. I am sorry to have ignored it and pretended I didn’t.
Danceswithdachshunds:
I never said it was and I am a GW skeptic.
Who is “they” and what is your definition of “works?”
Let me state that I don’t think I oppose a single FDA policy or position (including yesterday’s Cheerios issue).
Now, let me state, many drugs worked long before it was approved as medicine.
Yes. That’s one heluva greyscale you got there.
Doesn’t matter. However, I’d assume you’d ‘try to defend your definitive GG effects are cumulative’ statement in an attempt to restore your credibility to declare what is and isn’t fact – as you seem to enjoy doing quite aggressively.
corkie:
Doctors and those in the field. “Works” means it can be shown to be more effective than a placebo.
Fortunately, in modern times, we have developed actual ways of discerning these things quite easily using test groups and statistical analysis.
Oh stop playing games. Either you think YECs are patently insane or you don’t. There’s no “gray” area when it comes to the idea. It’s stupid. If you even give it the slightest bit of credence than you are horribly ignorant on the matter.
I just point at Venus. My credibility isn’t an issue. No doubt there are probably some YECs (and people that think Venus is hotter than Mercury for some other reasons than GG) on this forum that question my credibility. They are purposely deluding themselves and I do feel pity for them.
corkie said (#180):
The point of a conversation is not to convince yourself, it’s to convince other people.
Relations between physical quantities can be determined by “gedanken” (thought) experiments. There must be a relationship between emission and absorption because the two would have to be in balance in a closed system. The Einstein relations hold no matter where the atoms are.
The temperature 10 to 100 years from now.
SHoward said (#183):
Check the wikipedia article or more direct main stream scientific sources. Average temperatures are going up, on average (dumb sentence, but there are places on earth — not many — where average temperatures are expected to go down because of glbal warming changes in air circulation patterns.).
zeroangel said (#184):
Finally a question that isn’t on the entrance exam for the flat Earth society! There are no easy answers to this but a couple of partial answers. One is that the US still produces much more greenhouse gas than China. Second is that once Europe and the US are on board, it may be possible to pressure China the way it has been pressured on labor practices.
zeroangel said (#192):
The science in movies is always wrong, but movies (Chain Reaction etc.) can be fun anyway. This was a bad movie because the acting and writing were bad, and because it gave people the wrong idea about global warming.