You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...l#ixzz0fZHkmAEQ

dbowker
dbowker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: May 8 2007 - 6:37am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

So the whole world is hinging its opinion on this ONE guy? Don't think so.And in any case he doesn't say it's not happening, he is just offering corrective details. The premise is still the same, which he states several times.

But what about the source you provide? It's a Brit tabloid Lamont! Not exactly known for the highest level of journalism. Come on! Show me something from a REAL journal of science, repeat it over a 100 times independently,and we'll have something to talk about.

The finding of overall global warming are spread all across the globe from separate sources in every country. And even if it's only 50% caused by human activities, the long term cost of destabilized weather patterns and ocean levels will be devastating for EVERY country. Some worse than others obviously- but as they say, spend a penny now than a dollar later.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

As mentioned, but invisible to warming deniers, there is actual data that was never regarded as controversial until the tea bag set decided that global warming caused sex and abortion.

The USDA has been tracking plant hardiness zones for decades, advising farmers, plant fanciers, etc. how to best use their latitudes for botanical purposes.

Here is an animation showing the zone changes in the past two decades:

Zone changes

The data has been consistent from administration to administration, congress to congress.

The USDA was tracking this trend as it applies to agriculture long before Al Gore decided to save us from it and the rabid right decided it must be a communist myth to hold back the angry white dopes from becoming rich and comfortable.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Maxwell's Hammer.

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Here's a REALLY good one for the neoconkers out there....

http://www.nthposition.com/nightofthelivingdead.php

A tiny excerpt:

Anti-rationality and legal sophistry are apparent when one witnesses people redefining scientific theory to suit their arguments against that theory. A brother-in-law of mine once asked me, If we evolved from apes, why are they still here? Of course, the question makes no sense in terms of evolution. But I have witnessed arguments in which an individual with no idea of what comprises a specific scientific theory tells someone who specializes in that theory and made contributions to that theory, what the theory comprises. When the expert points out the incorrectness of the assumptions regarding the theory, the expert is told that he does not understand the theory. Of course, this allows the people arguing against the theory to reformulate the debate to their advantage. It is the classic straw man argument. This has become the method most used by the conservatives and unfortunately, it will work because few people are able to recognize the fallacy of such arguments. As when someone who knew nothing about mathematics told me that the infinite series with nth term 1/n converges. I gave a proof that it did not, but no one witnessing the argument could determine who was right since they were not capable of the requisite logical thought.

W H McNeill's ambitious history The Rise of the West makes the point that as societies disintegrate they lose faith in their traditional values and their authority figures, seeking out new forms of belief and new authority figures. The human primate is at base a superstitious creature, so this is not unexpected. Clearly it is happening within the West, where dissatisfaction with science has risen to new heights even as the primate love for technological toys grows. I believe that this is part of the phenomenon of the rise of the irrational conservatism discussed above. My friend, trained in mathematics, has turned his back on all scientific and mathematical argument. Nor is he a singleton. I have had similar experiences dating back to the late 1990s with people trained in science or mathematics or both. Some of them were guided by religious superstition, but many of them were guided by secular superstition that is not well-defined. Often it is some belief in ideas of Adam Smith that Smith never voiced, a misunderstanding of Smith, or a belief in Hayek and the Austrian school of economics which is a kind of secular religion. Sometimes it is fundamentalist belief in some sort of rugged individualism or libertarian anarchy (often tied to the Austrian school of economic religion), ironically by people who exist because of social institutions and inventions or who survive on government funding of some kind. My libertarian friends who work for the government fail to see the irony of their positions.

The purpose here is not to attempt to determine why these absurd reactions are occurring now, but instead to take a global view with historical hindsight in order to forecast their potential effects.

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

further tiny bits.....

One wonders how often the ding-a-ling Rush Limbaugh accused physicians of practicing junk science while shopping for drug suppliers. The idea that people with no grasp of any scientific theory whatsoever would call a theory junk amazes me. My neighbor told me that climate change was junk science. I certainly am not qualified to judge the complex chemistry and physics involved, though the statistical evidence for the increase of carbon dioxide with the industrial revolution seems incontrovertible (and reasonable, while admitting there are questions regarding the capacity of the planet to absorb carbon dioxide that are beyond my understanding). But I do have the ability to learn the basics of the problem and investigate the arguments from a technical perspective even as I lack the interest to do so. This keeps me from making claims one way or the other. But I asked my neighbor (an MBA, perhaps one of the most vapid of all studies, albeit with high ceremonial and pecuniary value and prized in this economy of workless work) if he had read any of the papers deriving the physical models. He became incensed. Why can't they write that stuff so we laymen can read it? he asked. I didn't ask him to explain in detail how his electronic ignition works, or his GPS receiver, or his cell phone. Or his radio. Or even the banking system or Treasury auctions or Federal Reserve open market actions. But even among some of those who were trained technically it is a sad situation (witness the list of PhDs who sign their names to a statement that global warming is not valid, some of whom I know personally, and know that they have no expertise regarding the technical soundness of the arguments one way or the other). As when an actuary who I assumed understood statistics said climate experts had to explain the unusual cool conditions this summer in certain locales. I didn't bother to ask what he knew about outliers and excursions in the face of averages, but his statement was as idiotic as that of the idiotic global warming naysayer who asked how can theorists predict long term stochastic events when they can't "even" get the short term predictions right? Anyone who understands stochastic processes understands how stupid a question that is; it is why there exists the Allan variance for atomic clocks, for example, with which long term predictions are highly accurate while short term predictions are almost impossible. The predictability of long term averages and unpredictability of short term averages is typical of most random processes. As is the fluctuation about the trend in stochastic dynamical systems. Perhaps a course in the relationship between statistical mechanics and thermodynamics would place this in some perspective, though given the educational system's necessity to replace substance with buzz words in order to "teach" the masses, it probably would be impossible to find such a class outside a graduate program in mathematical physics. I suggest instead reading chapter III of Mark Kac's Probability and Related Topics in Physical Sciences or at least chapter one of Colin J Thompson's Mathematical Statistical Mechanics, with particular attention to sections 1-8 and 1-9. Since these are easy as it gets regarding the statistics of physical systems, if you find you can't understand the material then you ought to stop yapping about global warming and statistics, regardless of your uninformed opinion.

** ** ** **

People ask how Germany could have fallen into the hands of the Nazis. They've been trained to assume Hitler was so apparently evil in his goal of taking over the nation that it was obvious. Yet Karl Rove expressed just such a goal in his desire to have the US become a one-party system with a Republican takeover. Does that make Rove evil? I don't think so (though the word evil has no objective significance in any case). I think he probably believes, as I am sure Hitler believed, it would be good for the country. And like Hitler, I am sure Rove (and Cheney and Palin and Beck) believe that it would be good for the world if the US took it over. That is the neocon wet dream, forcing what they consider "Democracy" down the throats of everyone.

Consider in this context of forcible Democratization of the world at gunpoint the words of Norman Davies in his monumental and informative Europe: A History. "Democracy has few values of its own: it is as good, or as bad, as the principles of the people who operate it. In the hands of liberal and tolerant people, it will produce a liberal and tolerant government; in the hands of cannibals, a government of cannibals."

The operative word is cannibal. The question is, what are cannibals? Citizens of the US would not consider themselves cannibals; does anyone believe that the residents of Hitler's Germany considered themselves cannibals? Yet it is the very act of voting for superstitious know-nothing pols like Inhofe that brings the cannibals to power.

** ** ** **

But I diverge from the track - which is to arrive at a forecast of the US political future which in part hinges on the difference between conservatives and the liberals they define and demonize: liberals do not seem to believe they need to be the only people in control. Such a belief is a significant part of why it is not the liberals who constitute a danger to the Republic - it's the conservatives. Conservatives believe that they need to gain complete control of the US or it will somehow dissolve into tyranny. Worse, they are too dull-witted to see the irony of such a conviction.

This article is waaaayyy too good.....

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
Here is an animation showing the zone changes in the past two decades:

Zone changes

The data has been consistent from administration to administration, congress to congress.

Fascinating map, Buddha. Thanks.

I was aware of the hardiness zone changes as I know a couple of ardent gardeners. They are enjoying being able to plant less hardy plants.

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

My thanks also Buddha. That's a very convincing demo of climate change. I hesitate to say "global warming" as I don't want the "ditto" heads coming down on me.

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

It's a human level global influence that is temporarily offset by the quieting of the sun's activity due to the dust clouds it is going through, as it enters the center disc or ecliptic of the galaxy's center. since the charge level differential of the dust is millions upon millions of volts per sq km different than the sun, this damps the sun's activity but also sets it up for erratic corona discharges, which it is starting to do.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
The purpose here is not to attempt to determine why these absurd reactions are occurring now, but instead to take a global view with historical hindsight in order to forecast their potential effects.

Wow! What a noncommittal line of intellectual bullshit that could apply to any argument. I recommend we all save that paragraph and paraphrase it in the future for all our arguments.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Didn't you read his post. Congress to congress? Are not those made up of politicians? Excuse my grandma.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

The purpose here is not to attempt to determine why your absurd reactions are occurring now, but instead to take a global view with historical hindsight in order to forecast their potential effects.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
Didn't you read his post. Congress to congress? Are not those made up of politicians? Excuse my grandma.

Sorry, you lost me with this one. What is the specific reference?

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

The purpose here is not to attempt to determine why your absurd reactions are occurring now, but instead to take a global view with historical hindsight in order to forecast their potential effects.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
The purpose here is not to attempt to determine why your absurd reactions are occurring now, but instead to take a global view with historical hindsight in order to forecast their potential effects.

Finally, you are making some sense.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Stratosphere cooler.
Global warming is proven.
Denial is nuts.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

I'd say that the warming part is a non-controversial observation.

As to the cause...not as certain.

At this point, only a teabag zombie would not allow the warming part. There are natural warming and cooling cycles, so denial of that is in the realm of 'static earth' creationism. Dumber than dumb.

Planning regarding how to handle natural cycles is also non-controversial - we plan around droughts, floods, etc, so the discussion is worth having about how to accomodate change over time.

Blaming humans is not as certain, however.

The teabag sets fails 2 out of three parts of the discussion. The AGW hairpullers fail, possibly, 1 out of 3.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
I'd say that the warming part is a non-controversial observation.

As to the cause...not as certain.

Not as certain, eh?
Stratosphere cooler today.
Surface is hotter.

Hotter surface, then
Colder Outer Atmosphere.
Insulation shown!

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Do you have proof that humans caused global warming at the end of the last ice age? How did that happen? De novo warming? Maybe it was Cro Magnon campfires?

Was the Earth temperature-static until humans 'caused' a warming trend htis past several decades?

Are you aware of what the warming data shows - and how long this warming trend has been present?

For fun, look up the temperature history of the planet - you'll be amazed! All sorts of warming and cooling.

This last cycle seems to date back all the way to when we began keeping temperature records - warmer seems to be the trend.

Did humans cause the Medievil Warm Period , as well?

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
Do you have proof that humans caused global warming at the end of the last ice age? How did that happen? De novo warming? Maybe it was Cro Magnon campfires?

Caveman logic now.
Have you stratosphere temps, eh?
Without them, nothing.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Quote:
Do you have proof that humans caused global warming at the end of the last ice age? How did that happen? De novo warming? Maybe it was Cro Magnon campfires?

Caveman logic now.
Have you stratosphere temps, eh?
Without them, nothing.

I could make up a "hockey stick" curve like certain scientists, I suppose.

So, how did we get the Medievil Warm Period?

AGW that time, too? (Since we have no stratospheric temperature data, did those events even occur?)

Like I said, I believe the warming data, I'm just not as convinced about the human caused part.

If we have examples of other relatively rapid-onset warming and cooling cycles...like the Little Ice Age and the following Medievil Warm Period...then how do you implicate humans in those? Or, if you say humans were not implicated, then why so fast to hop on board that train now?

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Quote:
I'd say that the warming part is a non-controversial observation.

As to the cause...not as certain.

Not as certain, eh?
Stratosphere cooler today.
Surface is hotter.

Hotter surface, then
Colder Outer Atmosphere.
Insulation shown!

What song is that?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I'd say that the warming part is a non-controversial observation.

As to the cause...not as certain.

Not as certain, eh?
Stratosphere cooler today.
Surface is hotter.

Hotter surface, then
Colder Outer Atmosphere.
Insulation shown!

What song is that?

I think it's a "They Might be Giants" song, one of their science based ones.

Similar:

The Sun is a Mass of Incandescent Gas

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
Like I said, I believe the warming data, I'm just not as convinced about the human caused part.

Well, there's no way to "prove" any of this, but there is an interesting fact.

Surface temperature is rising while outer atmosphere temp is falling.

This implies several things:

1) Something is intercepting the heat being transferred out via longwave IR, because that's a great deal of what heats the outer atmosphere.
2) It's not solar activity, that would raise both temperatures.

Now, this is not proof, but we know:
CO2 reflects long infrared
CH4 reflects long infrared
CFC's reflect long infrared

Evidence or not?
What kind of proof do you need?
Absolute? No such!

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Quote:
Like I said, I believe the warming data, I'm just not as convinced about the human caused part.

Well, there's no way to "prove" any of this, but there is an interesting fact.

Surface temperature is rising while outer atmosphere temp is falling.

This implies several things:

1) Something is intercepting the heat being transferred out via longwave IR, because that's a great deal of what heats the outer atmosphere.
2) It's not solar activity, that would raise both temperatures.

Now, this is not proof, but we know:
CO2 reflects long infrared
CH4 reflects long infrared
CFC's reflect long infrared

Evidence or not?
What kind of proof do you need?
Absolute? No such!

This fits my "good shepherd" approach to the problem. Also a little bit of Jamesian risk analysis.

If it's possible, why not behave as though it's true. The down side is a cleaner world, and the upside is preventing more rapid change.

I tie that with the Good Book's command of 'good shepherdship/stewardship' of the world and end up wondering what the teabag crowd gets so upset about.

"What?!? Global warming?!? If we acknowledge that it could slow down the rate at which our tank-topped tycoons move from a single wide to a new single wide and buy more guns! Death to global warming! It's a cult! Unlike us."

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

I'll make a prediction that will cost nothing! There will be prolonged periods of warming, followed by prolonged periods of cooling. This cycle will repeat until the Earth is swallowed up by the sun. The presence of man will have very little to do with these cyclic events, and to the extent he does, it will mostly inconvenience man himself. Ok, now can we get on with our short lives and be productive without some quasi-scientific governmental entity forcing us to use light bulbs that are more dangerous, cast a more irritating spectrum of light and will use more net energy after factoring in the repetative on/off warmup cycles that humans are conditioned to engage in. Remember, Earth has been the harshest mistress of all, with over 90% of all species being eliminated to date!

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
I'll make a prediction that will cost nothing! There will be prolonged periods of warming, followed by prolonged periods of cooling. This cycle will repeat until the Earth is swallowed up by the sun. The presence of man will have very little to do with these cyclic events, and to the extent he does, it will mostly inconvenience man himself. Ok, now can we get on with our short lives and be productive without some quasi-scientific governmental entity forcing us to use light bulbs that are more dangerous, cast a more irritating spectrum of light and will use more net energy after factoring in the repetative on/off warmup cycles that humans are conditioned to engage in. Remember, Earth has been the harshest mistress of all, with over 90% of all species being eliminated to date!

So, what's your take on the temperature differential between the upper and lower atmosphere, then?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Quote:
I'll make a prediction that will cost nothing! There will be prolonged periods of warming, followed by prolonged periods of cooling. This cycle will repeat until the Earth is swallowed up by the sun. The presence of man will have very little to do with these cyclic events, and to the extent he does, it will mostly inconvenience man himself. Ok, now can we get on with our short lives and be productive without some quasi-scientific governmental entity forcing us to use light bulbs that are more dangerous, cast a more irritating spectrum of light and will use more net energy after factoring in the repetative on/off warmup cycles that humans are conditioned to engage in. Remember, Earth has been the harshest mistress of all, with over 90% of all species being eliminated to date!

So, what's your take on the temperature differential between the upper and lower atmosphere, then?

Maybe you could provide him with comparative data from previous cycles?

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Compared to what? The last 10years, 20years, 50years, 100years...100 million years? Our knowledge is very limited and we are looking at roughly an ounce of a very large vat of soup! Some find the equatorial surface temps to be declining on average. Everybodies got there favorite data and it's all up to interpretation. Why is Antarctica growing as the Arctic receeds? What about the unknown complexity of the Solar Cycles and their effects on our climate. Does man contribute to the climates stability or instability? YES. How much? Not as much as the Earth itself does via natural Geological processes, let alone the suns effects as I mentioned...forget about planetary orbit paterns over time and other random large scale external processes that we know almost nothing about...YET! We should do what's reasonable while maintaining our ability as a country and a civilization, to be productive and creative economicaly. In other words, if our species can't grow and expand economicaly and creatively then what's the point of sticking around?

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
We should do what's reasonable while maintaining our ability as a country and a civilization, to be productive and creative economicaly.

Agreed.

We have a food production and economic structure based upon a reasonably consistent climate. Regardless of the cause of the increased chaos in the system we need to do what we can to address it.

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Oh my...a reasonable person this way cometh! Most of this worlds problems come from a lack of both reason and reasonability. It would take very little for every single person on this planet to live both individualisticaly and communaly. If it weren't for the few pricks in charge that always gravitate to the top of the hill through division and conquest, this mortal coil would be nearer Heaven. What is it in man that compels him to sow the seeds of dissatisfaction and animosity in order to gain control of his neighbors. So much human capital and wealth could be retained for the good of all, if we just decided to allow for diversity and enjoy the opportunities we have each been given.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
Oh my...a reasonable person this way cometh! Most of this worlds problems come from a lack of both reason and reasonability. It would take very little for every single person on this planet to live both individualisticaly and communaly. If it weren't for the few pricks in charge that always gravitate to the top of the hill through division and conquest, this mortal coil would be nearer Heaven. What is it in man that compels him to sow the seeds of dissatisfaction and animosity in order to gain control of his neighbors. So much human capital and wealth could be retained for the good of all, if we just decided to allow for diversity and enjoy the opportunities we have each been given.

http://dmdb.org/lyrics/deteriorata.html

"You are a fluke of the universe
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back"

Well, what I find interesting about the deniers is that they want to silence everyone else and hew to the "no such thing" line lock, stock and barrel, while crops wither, trees die, other trees grow, and people are forced to adapt.

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

The truth is in the middle....most of the time anyway:O)

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
The truth is in the middle....most of the time anyway:O)

JJ don't want to hear that shit. He is really no different than JIMV. Polar opposites. I think they should get a room.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Quote:
We should do what's reasonable while maintaining our ability as a country and a civilization, to be productive and creative economicaly.

Agreed.

We have a food production and economic structure based upon a reasonably consistent climate. Regardless of the cause of the increased chaos in the system we need to do what we can to address it.

The little Ice Age fucked things up pretty good like you describe above.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Quote:
The truth is in the middle....most of the time anyway:O)

JJ don't want to hear that shit. He is really no different than JIMV. Polar opposites. I think they should get a room.

Is there some reason you are lying about my position?

Since I am not endorsing the "hockey stick", and you ought to know that by now, you're a flat-out, simpleminded liar.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
We should do what's reasonable while maintaining our ability as a country and a civilization, to be productive and creative economicaly.

Agreed.

We have a food production and economic structure based upon a reasonably consistent climate. Regardless of the cause of the increased chaos in the system we need to do what we can to address it.

The little Ice Age fucked things up pretty good like you describe above.

Sure did, and this time we'd better understand what's coming down the road, rather than take it on the chin. Of course, you deniers don't want anyone to study anything... You just want to deny...

Your brainless farting about the warm period simply doesn't comprehend the whole issue of the lower vs. upper atmosphere temperature.

You can argue it might have happened then. But you don't know why, you don't know if it did, you throw out an unsubstantiated sound bite that flies in the face of just about everything chemistry and meteorology tell us.

Yeah, you COULD be right. Pigs flying past your face yet?

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Instead of fighting with people that you stereotype, no different JIMV does, why don't you grow a pair and take an actual position you know what the fuck you are talking about?

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Instead of fighting with people that you stereotype, no different JIMV does, why don't you grow a pair and take an actual position you know what the fuck you are talking about?

Could you manage to be coherent for once?

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Simplicity of character is the natural result of profound thought.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Simplicity of character is the natural result of profound thought.

Could you manage to be coherent for once?

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

Settle down now and pretend to be evolved. Speaking of evolution, if at some point in the future pigs with random muations that favor the development of flight, in response to an environmental stress, enable them to reproduce and exploit an ecological niche successfully...well, then I guess them pigs will be flyin' high! As for now, the bottom line is that we can practically only do so much to alter whatever environmental scenario that may or may not be unfolding. Whatever our success or failure concerning GW or GC, you can rely on one fact for sure...Mother Nature is inevitably gonna bitch slap us something fierce eventually. When that day comes, and it will come, we will all be waxing poetic regarding these seemingly chaotic times...at least the ones of us who are still around. For now, let's enjoy each other, care for each other and do what is economicaly feasible and reasonable regarding things climate.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
Settle down now and pretend to be evolved. Speaking of evolution, if at some point in the future pigs with random muations that favor the development of flight, in response to an environmental stress, enable them to reproduce and exploit an ecological niche successfully...well, then I guess them pigs will be flyin' high! As for now, the bottom line is that we can practically only do so much to alter whatever environmental scenario that may or may not be unfolding. Whatever our success or failure concerning GW or GC, you can rely on one fact for sure...Mother Nature is inevitably gonna bitch slap us something fierce eventually. When that day comes, and it will come, we will all be waxing poetic regarding these seemingly chaotic times...at least the ones of us who are still around. For now, let's enjoy each other, care for each other and do what is economicaly feasible and reasonable regarding things climate.

"stop making sense"

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

But running around pulling our hair and tragedizing is the new American way.

Imagine what would happen if Nancy Grace did weather.

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

I think Nancy is in discussions with the weather channel to do a prime time nightly rant as we speak. They will call it "Grace Under Pressure". The show will examine the impact Humans have on our environment and discuss the role that lawyers will have in legislating our way out of the impending climate disaster.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
"stop making sense"

Exactly.

How can we mindlessly argue with this sort of reasonable thinking polluting our forum?

(I do want to see the flying pigs however.)

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:

Quote:
"stop making sense"

Exactly.

How can we mindlessly argue with this sort of reasonable thinking polluting our forum?

(I do want to see the flying pigs however.)

I want to see David Byrne flying.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
I want to see David Byrne flying.

Perhaps in an over sized, pink fluffy suit.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 days ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:


Quote:
I want to see David Byrne flying.

I think that's what "And She Was" is about.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Yep, no controversy amongst the science community:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE61N0TR.htm

Quote:

ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming
25 Feb 2010 14:59:01 GMT
Source: Reuters
* Exact causes unknown for lack of warming from 1999-2008

* The underlying reason for cold winter not known

* Climate science in focus after email scandal, errors

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading