Quote:
Climatologists get paid regardless of their findings. They have been doing this work for decades. There work is to analyze climate, not reach preconceived conclusions.

Not according to the ClimateGate memo's...Folk either toed the line or got blackballed...That is not to say no one could get work, just that it was a LOT easier to get jobs that paid and resulted in published data if one was of the right faith.

Quote:
The flaw in the entire idea that AGW is a conspiracy is that the data and conclusions existed for years. It was not controversial. The work was to try to determine extant, root causes, interplay with natural causes, etc. There was no one with a vested interest, no deliberate misinformation campaign.

As did the evidence that debunked the idea...what was new was the organized effort to marginalize one view and promote another, and that was hip deep in money and political power.

I read today that Caterpillar has bowed out of the Cap and Tax scheme...As the extent of the fraud has been revealed, companies bullied into the new faith are finding room to leave.

Quote:
As did the evidence that debunked the idea...

Such as? For decades there has been mounting evidence of AGW. There are inconsistencies in the data and a variety of explanatory hypothesis offered but I am unaware of any evidence that wholly "debunked the idea".

As to misstatements and misrepresentations: There have indeed been problems on both sides. This is what sadly happens when science becomes a political weapon, rather than a search for facts. This is why we hear wholly unsupported claims such as the risk of breast cancer increases in women who have had an abortion. There is zero evidence of this.

Most recently the Bush administration strictly controlled what federal researchers could say on AGW. I have not heard such stories with the Obama administration but I would not be surprised if it happens. Mr. Obama has acted oppositely to what he promised with respect to "transparency" (for example the refusal to produce White House visitor lists after criticize Mr. Bush for doing the same).

The IPCC report was similarly flawed, overstating and misrepresenting the science in sports. It was written by politicians instead of scientists - many of whom objected to what was being stated.

Neither side seems to grasp that misstating and overreaching hurts their cause.

My guess is that some members of the public see the hyperbole and throw out everything relating to climate change - which also an erroneous position.

My guess is that some members of the public see the hyperbole and throw out everything relating to climate change - which also an erroneous position.

It's the easy way out when you don't know who to trust.

Did not Bush Jr. Have an Exxon employee as a cabinet minster of the environment or some other such (can't quite remember what or who it was) obviously fascist situation?

I'm not talking about 'Conned-a-lizard Lice' either.

Wow, you could be a speech writer for the Obama administration!

If they get paid per word, Ken could get rich!

Quote:
Exxon's gone liberal?

So did Shrub!

Damn.

All JIMV has left is AM Talk radio!

And that is so inferior to those DNC talking points and slogans that 'spontaneously' appear at the exact same time on every forum, as soon as the approved leftist sources print them.

Quote:

Quote:
As did the evidence that debunked the idea...

Such as? For decades there has been mounting evidence of AGW. There are inconsistencies in the data and a variety of explanatory hypothesis offered but I am unaware of any evidence that wholly "debunked the idea".

As to misstatements and misrepresentations: There have indeed been problems on both sides. This is what sadly happens when science becomes a political weapon, rather than a search for facts. This is why we hear wholly unsupported claims such as the risk of breast cancer increases in women who have had an abortion. There is zero evidence of this.

Most recently the Bush administration strictly controlled what federal researchers could say on AGW. I have not heard such stories with the Obama administration but I would not be surprised if it happens. Mr. Obama has acted oppositely to what he promised with respect to "transparency" (for example the refusal to produce White House visitor lists after criticize Mr. Bush for doing the same).

The IPCC report was similarly flawed, overstating and misrepresenting the science in sports. It was written by politicians instead of scientists - many of whom objected to what was being stated.

Neither side seems to grasp that misstating and overreaching hurts their cause.

My guess is that some members of the public see the hyperbole and throw out everything relating to climate change - which also an erroneous position.

I have no more intention debating a discredited faith than I do arguing about the reality of the holocaust or 911 truther nonsense...the faith is dead...move on.

Anybody remember the dust bowl? Vinyards in England? Frozen Earth/Tropical Earth (before man)? Sun cycles? Any number of obvious discrepancies with "Manmade Global Warming". We happen to have evolved during a time of relative climactic stability. The Earth will do just fine with or without us...it has a way with rejecting infections. Afterall, over 90% of all species have been eliminated to date! For humans to think that we can alter the natural geologic climate cycles is wishfull thinking, and even if we could theoreticaly....China, India, Iran etc..., have another plan entirely.

Man, you on a roll. Six posts in about 2 years...

Quote:
Wow, you could be a speech writer for the Obama administration!

I can just as easily throw barbs at Obama, if you wish. Assholes who are puppets for hidden hands...run among in most governments. One ass stinks as much as the last, or the next.

There's no two party system left and that system was created to fool people into thinking 'choice' existed. What you have now is a situation where the machine is showing it's falseness more easily than ever before.

Obama and his cabinet are just as crooked as Bush's was, if not more.

Your vote is not good for anything, and has not been good for anything for more than a few generations. Don't vote --get even. Look past the system in place today, don't try to vote your way out of a situation, that's a total waste of time.

Hidden hands? Show me.
Imagination and fear.
THAT I will believe.

The depth, the insight...your understanding of the complex social political machinations grinding away in the USA is stunning! I'll make sure to stay away from the voting booth and wallow in my own disaffectedness and self interests. That's gonna show those evil politicians who's boss for sure. To think, I was actually going to get involved and make a difference...crazy me.

Quote:
Hidden hands? Show me.
Imagination and fear.
THAT I will believe.

The trick JJ, is to start looking outside of what you know. That is how knowledge is expanded. You know it is true of science, it is also far more true of politics and the subterfuge within it. The gift you have in science is that the data is there waiting to be understood and found, it is not purposely hiding, for it cares not for human issues. So the application of scientific methodology can be workable, but there are other sociological and psychological requirements that must be added to the methodology. Think outside of the science box, and into the detective work required to track and reveal the hand of the nefarious.

Beware the emotional and controllist hand of politics as it lurks, unnoticed in the depths of the structure of the decision making bodies within the heights of academia and science. Einstein warned of this directly, on more than one occasion. The reason is that scientists are blind, for the most part, to the idea of machinations in science, for their minds are not wired that way, thus they have a blind spot about that. So those who manipulate go to where they ALWAYS go: to the blind spots ...that can be, and are manipulated. Thus the heights of science are riddled with manipulation, as much as any political system that has corporate involvement.

Any area of science that may alter the world stage in any way, is under particularly high levels of infiltration and control. This much is obvious to anyone with a few brain cells to rub together.

Here's one for those who don't know all that much about climate issues. Earlier (many different posts ago)I mentioned that as the icepack is warmed at the given poles, it may form, evaporate and re-form into ice but many see ice and they think Ice. But the temperature of the ice is also incredibly critical, that's the energy storage mechanism at the core of the issue. The water may freeze, but it is not as cold as it once was.

As well, the increase in vapour pushes south, and the cold air hits the warm and the jet stream has wilder swings as well as the overall weather having wilder swings. Snow in summer, warming and snow melts in winter...and most importantly, floods, etc, and 'wild swings' in the 'swing seasons' of spring and fall. This makes it doubly hard to stabilize in the short term analysis. But the increase in air flow and the humidity of it and the push of this vapour to the south off the north pole and the same down at the south pole, this can be found.

"NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow. 'The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was... in the 1970s,' says Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist. 'So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming.' Increased snowfall also fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures increase the amount of atmospheric moisture, bringing more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588&ft=1&f=1007

The general note for the thread is something like:

I'm not disagreeing that global warming can be and is used for political purposes, but it should be realized that the opposing point or tact is at least as guilty of being in a whole world of spin and manipulation.

Question all news. Just don't do it with any emotions attached, otherwise ~`you~ will be the one creating falseness. Creating the lie in your own head for a personal sense of satisfaction and reflection of your desired world view.

Getting people to realize that last point is more difficult than dealing with the crap you get from the three-four year old when you are trying to get them to understand that they can't get their way, simply because they want to. They will do everything in their power to force what they want into existence.

Same shit, differently aged human.

Quote:
I have no more intention debating a discredited faith . . .

Interesting.

All I did was asked for you to back up your claim "the evidence that debunked the idea..." was available decades ago.

The lack of direct citation other than to blogs and op-ed pieces is a disturbing trend in public discourse. The IPCC's misdirection is inexcusable as well.

If you ever come across a solid well-documented summary of your position that isn't based on an opinion piece please post it. I am honestly interested.

Quote:

Quote:
I have no more intention debating a discredited faith . . .

Interesting.

All I did was asked for you to back up your claim "the evidence that debunked the idea..." was available decades ago.

The lack of direct citation other than to blogs and op-ed pieces is a disturbing trend in public discourse. The IPCC's misdirection is inexcusable as well.

If you ever come across a solid well-documented summary of your position that isn't based on an opinion piece please post it. I am honestly interested.

That's a lot to ask from a ditto head like JIMV

Quote:

The trick JJ, is to start looking outside of what you know.

That's what I've been doing for 57 years so far, and I see something entirely different than you do.

Quote:

Quote:
I have no more intention debating a discredited faith . . .

Interesting.

All I did was asked for you to back up your claim "the evidence that debunked the idea..." was available decades ago.

The lack of direct citation other than to blogs and op-ed pieces is a disturbing trend in public discourse. The IPCC's misdirection is inexcusable as well.

If you ever come across a solid well-documented summary of your position that isn't based on an opinion piece please post it. I am honestly interested.

More news of the death of the cult

AMSTERDAM (AP) - Top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press on Thursday that he was resigning after nearly four years, a period when governments struggled without success to agree on a new global warming deal.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100218/D9DUKH501.html

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I have no more intention debating a discredited faith . . .

Interesting.

All I did was asked for you to back up your claim "the evidence that debunked the idea..." was available decades ago.

The lack of direct citation other than to blogs and op-ed pieces is a disturbing trend in public discourse. The IPCC's misdirection is inexcusable as well.

If you ever come across a solid well-documented summary of your position that isn't based on an opinion piece please post it. I am honestly interested.

That's a lot to ask from a ditto head like JIMV

I have posted over and over that neither I nor anyone else on this forum has the credentials or training to be one of the score or so of international multi disciplinary scientists that really (as opposed to, sort of maybe) understand this stuff. I admit my ignorance of the science BUT, I have gone further. I reject the claims that anyone else posting knows what they are talking about. All they do is parrot the work of others, right down to talking points and condensed summaries from UN and other documents that pretend to discuss the science.

As no one here is doing anything more than taking claims on faith, regardless of their intellectual pretenses, my adding to the mess of muddled or copied data would achieve nothing.

Bottom line, I know my limitations...The biggest problem in the Global Warming Cult is the believers refusal to acknowledge theirs.

For the last year we have had story after story about the foundations of the cult crumbling under scrutiny, faked data, flawed science, suppressed dissenting views, and bogus studies...It is not my job to disprove the faith but its believers to prove it...they failed.

Quote:
AMSTERDAM (AP) - Top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press on Thursday that he was resigning after nearly four years, a period when governments struggled without success to agree on a new global warming deal.

Not on point.

Can you back up your claim "the evidence that debunked the idea..." was available decades ago?

Read my last post again...

And another music interlude...

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

Quote:

Quote:

The trick JJ, is to start looking outside of what you know.

That's what I've been doing for 57 years so far, and I see something entirely different than you do.

Fair enough. We agree to disagree, methinks. It's too bad some can't leave it at that. (What I mean by that is that we are sitting at a table happily sharing a few beers with no complaints, and looking at other people arguing)

Quote:
Read my last post again...

It similarly fails to back up your claim that "the evidence that debunked the idea..." was available decades ago.

You made this specific factual assertion and I am curious what you have, if anything, to back this up. I am aware only of the well-documented work of Exxon and others who intentionally mislead the public as to the then existing science knowing that their claims were false.

On a separate issue:

You indicate that you have neither the "credentials or training to . . . understand this stuff."

As this is the case, one would expect you to be agnostic on the issue - and on all other questions with respect to which you have neither credentials nor training.

Instead you campaign against[ something you admit you do not understand.

Philosophically it is an interesting position; you cannot render an opinion or make a judgment unless you have specific expertise in the matter.

How do you come to a conclusion on complex scientific matters such as evolution and AGW?

Are their scientific premises you accept? Which?

How do you choose which you will accept and those you don't?

Yours is an intriguing world view.

And again...I will not argue with pretend internet scientists in a "my priest is true and yours a heretic" arguments.

YOU do not understand the science any more than I so my posing links to studies neither of us really can follow will only lead to counter links from your priests...

It is faith, religion, not science you push...Well, just like the Catholic Church selling indulgences in 1517, heretics are out in force with their own 95 Thesis. They note the quack science, the financial gain and political power seized by the cults Priests and 'scientists' and say, 'no, we do not need your cult. You got caught faking it. Go away and stop bothering us'.

I will not argue 'science' we simply do not understand just as I will not argue obscure religious dogma.

Quote:
YOU do not understand the science any more than I.

That's quite a statement. Once again, source?

Quote:
It is faith, religion, not science you push...

Actually I have provided citations to any factual statement I made.

Quote:
I will not argue 'science' we simply do not understand just as I will not argue obscure religious dogma.

Yet this is precisely what you are engaged in. You are adamantly against a scientific position with respect to which you admit ignorance. Under your own rules you should not even have a position.

The substance of your argument: I don't understand it, therefore it must not be true.

You have additionally made factual claims with respect to data. I am simply asking you to provide the foundation for your claims.

If you cannot, which appears to be the case, why not simply so state?

Quote:
YOU do not understand the science any more than I so my posing links to studies neither of us really can follow will only lead to counter links from your priests...

Son.

Think again, and very, very carefully, before you say something like that again.

No I am not a climate scientist. I AM someone who can read the data and understand the statistics, thank you.

And if you really have an "open mind" instead of "there is no warming, neener neener neener" as a religion, what you care about is the DATA and the ANALYSIS.

WHO says what should not matter.

The data matters. The data says you're deluded, and in terminal denial.

If you don't like that, COMPLAIN TO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND SEE HOW MUCH THEY CARE.

Quote:

Quote:
YOU do not understand the science any more than I.

That's quite a statement. Once again, source?

Are you a internationally known multi disciplinary scientist making a living in climate studies...

Didn't think so.

Quote:

Quote:
YOU do not understand the science any more than I so my posing links to studies neither of us really can follow will only lead to counter links from your priests...

Son.

Think again, and very, very carefully, before you say something like that again.

No I am not a climate scientist. I AM someone who can read the data and understand the statistics, thank you.

Junior, how is that in any way different than the Deacon at the local church reading and using theology produced by the Church..By the time data gets to his level, it has been reduced to a form folk understand...

They do not understand the 'science'..they have faith in the source. They are not reading the Bible in Aramaic, or spending months in the Vatican library reading the works of St Francis in the original Latin..they are convinced they are on the right side of the argument but they are as far from Thomas Aquinas as you are from the folk who really understand the science...

You have FAITH and that is religion, not science.

So, no, I do not grant you the level of expertise needed to raise your argument from the mere repetition of dogma to a deep understand of the underlying science, you ability to read talking point and dummied down charts and statistics not withstanding.

Oh, and the 'data' has been cooked and the analysis politicized, as shown in the ClimateGate memo's.

Quote:
how is that in any way different than the Deacon at the local church reading and using theology produced by the Church..

If you don't know the answer to that, you are fundamentally ignorant in ways that are simply beyond this board to repair.

I didn't know we were here to repair. Why didn't somebody tell me we were here to repair?

Quote:

Quote:
how is that in any way different than the Deacon at the local church reading and using theology produced by the Church..

If you don't know the answer to that, you are fundamentally ignorant in ways that are simply beyond this board to repair.

And if you are not aware of the limitations of each and every person remarking on climate change on this forum, you are too delusional to comment.

Put another way, I admit my limitations, other posters pretend knowledge they simply do not have. Who is wrong?

Quote:

And if you are not aware of the limitations of each and every person remarking on climate change on this forum, you are too delusional to comment.

So, then, you claim to know the full and complete qualifications for everyone who posts here?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Maybe you should be pitied.

If one of the remaining supervolcanoes, like Yellowstone, Long Valley, Valles Caldera, Lake Toba, Taupo Volcano or Aira Caldera decides to blow it's top off, we're more or less all done for. Either one of them could easily trigger a small ice age, with long lasting effects to us and our communities. The ashes and sulfuric acid from such an eruption can fall as far as a 1000 miles from the volcano with devastating effects. In the meantime, let's take good care of our winter clothes, and enjoy life and good music.

Living 400 miles from Yellowstone, a have to agree..

We have an agreement, however slight!

Perfect place to stop.

Quote:
We have an agreement, however slight!

Perfect place to stop.

Stop arguing ?

What fun is that ?

Like the P.E. coach told us in high school, "you're not going anywhere now put those gloves back on!" I hated boxing in high school. Those huge gloves would tire my skinny little arms out within a couple of minutes. That is if I was still on my feet. I preferred dodge ball using volley balls. Going to class with a red swollen volley ball imprint on the side of your face was a sign of real manhood! So, everybody back on the court this is DODGE BALL!

Quote:
Living 400 miles from Yellowstone, a have to agree..

Hopefully upwind of Yellowstone? Given the ash found in Chicago, I would not want to be downwind. Yikes.

Yes, it would be a mess. It would be survivable WITH WARNING that we will most likely get, but you know, I expect we'll just see the same kind of deny, deny, deny, deny that we see now for global warming.

And the reactionaries and business interests will stall until it's too late and everyone in the northern hemisphere will starve.

Quote:
I preferred dodge ball using volley balls. Going to class with a red swollen volley ball imprint on the side of your face was a sign of real manhood! So, everybody back on the court this is DODGE BALL!

Heh, some of us "skinny nerds" kicked butt at dodgeball, but you DO have my sympathy in that area. I was required to be a "skinny nerd" because I got good grades, you see, but the lot of the bullies couldn't catch me in 2 miles if I had a 50 foot head start. I mean, I'd slow down so they wouldn't quit, and keep trying ...

Quote:
I'd slow down so they wouldn't quit, and keep trying ...

Just like a dog does off-leash when going for a walk in the woods. The dog keeps looking back to make sure you are still there.

I now understand the avatar.