| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
November 24, 2009 - 7:58pm
#1
Global Warming Scam
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
And another person insists on remaining igorant of AGW vs. GW, and also ignores the simple issue of chaotic behavior of systems, which it appears some wingnuts tried to hide.
It's global warming. Not ego defense mechanisms like, arguing against an anxiety provoking stimuli by stating it doesn't exist, taking out impulses on a less threatening target, avoiding unacceptable emotions by ignoring the intellectual aspects, placing unacceptable impulses in yourself onto someone else, supplying a logical or rational reason as opposed to the real reason, taking the opposite belief because the true belief causes anxiety, returning to a previous stage of development, pulling into the unconscious, pushing into the unconscious, and acting out unacceptable impulses in a preconceived socially acceptable way. When the ego has a difficult time making both the id and the superego happy, it will employ one or more of these defenses:
Now, you want to prove global warming or not? Because this scandal is going to set the science back to the 1950s.
The faith in the pop religion has been fading over the last few years as it has gotten colder despite the prognostications of the faithful. Now we know a lot of the folk who crafted the new faith cooked the science books and data to suppress dissenting views while pushing bogus info...
Even though the old bought dem media is hiding the story, it is out everywhere so I expect the scam to fade away over the next few years and some other grow government and steal money scheme to take its place...
JIMV and his Kool Aid, again.
From the American Horticultrual Society and the USDA...
"In 2002 USDA contracted with the American Horticultural Society (AHS) to revise the 1990 Hardiness Zone Map and "better reflect minor regional variances in temperature that have occurred in the last decade" AHS. The AHS, under the direction of Dr. H. Marc Cathey, who lead the development of the 1990 USDA Map, issued a draft of the update in the May/June 2003 issue of "The American Gardener".
The AHS 2003 Draft differs in several ways from the 1990 version. Mexico and Canada are no longer represented. The number of zones has expanded from 11 to 15 to address ideal growing climates for sub-tropical and tropical plants. The 5 degree a/b zones were dropped in order to make the map easier to read. The AHS version is based on 16 years of data (1986 to 2002), while 1990 Map was based on 13 years of data (1974 to 1986).
The most striking aspect of the AHS Draft is that many of the hardiness zones have moved northward reflecting a general warming trend during the winters over the 16 year measurement period. 40% of the 4,600 weather stations used in developing the map showed a higher zone number compared to the 1990 USDA version. For example, St. Petersburg, Florida has moved from Zone 9 to Zone 10. In the maps for Florida below notice how Zone 9 has migrated northward into Georgia and away from the central coast of Florida. The two small spots within Zone 9 on the AHS Draft represent the effects of urban warming (Orlando and Lakeland). "
If JIMV could take his head out of Rush's butt, he'd be able to find data beyond his fringe claim of religious faith.
I am not interested in the 'man did it, no he didn't' argument, but the trends are there for warming.
Since the 1920's (and likely before, as there was not alot of data around,) the planting zones have been moving north.
JIMV, you got problems with the USDA and AHS?
More faith-type fantasy regarding this "pop religion:"
It has a regional flavor...out west we have some lovely trees called Bristle Cone Pines. They live thousands of years. So long, in fact, that some may have existed before the Universe was created 5-6000 years ago.
They are also interesting keepers of data. One tree that was sampled had annual rings dating back 4,844 years. They called this tree Promethius. (JIMV, if you don't believe in the trees or the dates, feel free to Google the terms I'm using.)
So, these trees live at high altitude and have a very short growing season. In the past 50 years, they have exhibited the longest growing seasons in the last several thousandyears.
The trees living at the highest tree lines grew at a faster rate than they had for the previous 3,700 years.
They have also been able to begin expanding their range into hitherto Bristle-Cone-less areas. The tree line has been moving higher in altitude thanks to an extended growing season.
Like I said, and this data favors the non-man-made variety of global warming - it seems a noncontroversial trend toward warmer temperatures; it's just that it's hard to implicate people with any certainty.
JIMV, drop the pop religion crap. This warming stuff is showing up in the least political places - unless you idiot birfer teabaggers think plants must somehow have a liberal bias.
You will need to wait another 3700 years to see if your trees are correct by chopping them down again and counting the rings.
Why?
They already have the data to the present time.
You think those liberal trees are up to no good, eh, Lamont?
Nah, just want to read the same thing you did so I can at least have a chance to scrutinize it. That is the core of this whole scam all of a sudden. Thanks to a hacker we all know now nobody wants to look at any real data. Or rather, nobody that believes in Global Warming wants anybody looking at any real data.
Okay.
Solidly red state government source.
National Academy of the Sciences.
Scientific American, which is probably regarded as left wing, since they believe in evolution.
Of somewhat related interest, and I am not familiar with salon as regarding its veracity, but this was cool about wine I'm thinking of buying vineyard land in British Columbia; and if I fail, at least I can grow bud.
The slide was informative but yet again here is another study and the only conclusion is subjective (I'm referring to the slide show linked below). I'm not shitting on these folks but lets face it. They are "tree ring" scientists and the narrator made it clear that "some" of these experts think this, which they "openly can't explain" and yet later indicate that it can only be caused by climate warming...
http://www.nsf.gov/news/newsmedia/treerings/
They are looking at 50 years worth of rings and not seeing anything similar for another 3600 rings. Like I mentioned above they would have to wait another 3700 years and cut down some more. BTW, I want to clarify my position on Global Warming. We could very well be in a warming period since the Little Ice Age but nobody has yet to prove that man is at fault here. When Krakatoa blew up it put more bullshit in the atmosphere to wreak havoc than man could possible create since that explosion. And that is just one of many such natural events since that time and before that time. It's obvious that "some" scientists really want to find something that meets an agenda rather than a comprehensive conclusion. That is what this scam is all about. The science has been dealt a much deserved blow to the side of the head. Maybe now they will start using the scientific method. And that goes for Darwin as well.
Also, there is no need to color your sources as red or blue. My degree is Liberal Arts. I can take it if I'm wrong about something.
What I do see is some correlation here with things that happened as a result of the Little Ice Age like The Black Plague where man blamed himself for things like pissing off God and the same mentality of hysteria going on with Global Warming like the sky is falling and it can only be Man's fault. We've come full circle and not much has changed. 36 thousand people die each year in the U.S. from common influenza. Nobody really gives a shit. Nearly 5,000 troops have been killed in Iraq. Which get the most press everyday? And why? It is more comforting to think that Man is creating Global Warming because otherwise there is nothing we can do about it. I can see it now, "36 Thousand People Die Each Year From Global Warming" on page sixteen. The page 1 headline will read, "4 troops are convicted of assault and battery in the capture of America's Most Wanted".
We really need a cure for viral infections.
It's a religion. I could no more convince you that your religion is BS then you could convince the Pope he is wrong...We rely on reality to convince not the religious but the followers of their error...
The gig is up and you can hear a pin drop in LaGuardia.
Man, now here's a set of losers...
"You say you'd like a look at our data? Well, we threw it away."
But we should just trust them to have read it right.
What a world.
We have the camp that must think the Earth cannot have warming trends for any reason, like JIMV and Lamont. And on the other side, we have 'scientists' who throw away data and tell us to trust their conclusions.
And both sides are sure they are right.
What a coincidence. I started a new similar thread at the same time!
"Value-added"???? Sounds like a new term for a GM car?
Hey, don't knock it. So far, it's working for Acorn.
UN Security Stops Journalist
Dude, you are a shill, or a moron, or both. Take your pick.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edit: let me rephrase that. I do understand your concern. But your efforts are horrifically misplaced. Your understanding of the situation is at best, along partly lines of politics and in that way, constitute a invalid reaction of the worst kind. For drawing such things along political party lines is showing a hand that knows not the first thing about politics. Infantile, at best.
That's about the nicest thing that can be said.
let me illustrate.
I remember reading an article written by someone who was the head of the re-election campaign for a well known governor..or was it presidential? No matter, not relevant as you shall soon see..
The point was that the guy sat there, on election night..fretting... wondering who was going to get into office and who's policies would be enacted, etc. Jay Rockefeller was in the room. "No matter", Jay said, while shaking his head and smiling, "We own both Candidates".
Recall that Kerry and Bush are cousins and both members of Skull and Bones.
I hope the picture is clear enough. I doubt it though. I've said it before and you act as if the page I wrote on -was blank. Which leads to the conclusion that you are either a shill, or a moron, or both. Best case scenario is that such things scare the crap out of you so much that you continue to sit there with your fingers in your ears and eyes going 'la-la-la-la...'.. desperately trying to push such knowledge of reality away, to hold your self proclaimed corner of the world from getting wobbly and making you throw up. Or, that yo know all this and you are inciting riot in people purposely to enrage them and kill real debate, or to maintain the illusion of party lines being extant and real. That would be the shill part, a shill for this utter crap,and in full knowledge of what you do that would be extremely disgusting, if true. I mention this as the Israeli government has been caught recruiting citizens to go out on the net and trash anyone who criticizes Israel, and to also report them back to a central office. And the republican groups of note have recently enacted the same tactic. normally they'd do it directly via DHS, etc, but some of hem are locked out now, no trough to feed in for their little agendas, in the direct sense - so they have to switch to plan B. It has also been noted that the spearhead for 'blogging against warming' is the same crew who worked to slag others, and this person is a employee of the oil companies. And that the disputed released emails from the given climate group ..they were sourced out of Russia...Russia -who is now one of if not -the- biggest oil exporting nation. Any conflict of interests there?
At the same time, the Climate thing is being used as an agenda to drive through policies, laws, and other efforts that have noting t do with protecting the environment and everything to do with consolidation of global power structures for specific small elite groups. the climate issue is REAL. There is no doubt. What is in doubt is who is driving the issue and what is being enacted, for who...and by who???
-Note that Obama did not change the patriot act one iota.
-Note that he enacted more of the same.
-Note that he is sending even more people to Afghanistan.
-Note that criticism of Israel is still strictly verboten.
So meet the new boss - same as the old boss.
See the turd on the ground. It stinks beyond belief. You walk up to it and look. One side says 'Republican'. With a disgusted look on your face, you use a stick to turn the wormy, infested thing - over. The other side says 'Obama'.
Get off the crusades that work so hard that obscure the fact that no government in power in the US federal offices has been worth even the most basic tiny shit for the past 50 years. Not a single one of them has ever been for the people and have only been for elite agendas. Nothing more. understand that illusion in front of you, and maybe you could get somewhere.
But I also think I'm wasting my breath with you, but I have slightly more hope for Lamont finally getting it.
How amusing..I find myself rebutted by folk with no more understanding of the science than I have of Euclidean physics BUT, I am the one confused...you misread, I acknowledge my limitations on the issue, I do not pretend knowledge I simply cannot have..Perhaps one could take a lesson from such humility.
The issue should NOT be political but it has become so, and so has the 'science'...
You seem to be suggesting that there is no difference between the political parties. And you accuse someone else of being infantile? There are certainly many areas where their own self interest is continually protected to the detriment of the nation as a whole, but a blind refusal to differntiate the critical areas where there is substantial difference would preclude your opinion from being considered rational.
Sometimes a choice boils down to between bad and worse. Choosing the bad to avoid an even worse scenario is completely rational and doesn't imply approval of bad.
A perfect example is made in contrasting Justice Scalia with Justice Sotomayer. A Democrat would never nominate a Scalia, while a Republican "might." A Democrat would never nominate a Roberts, while a Republican might.
Now, if you think having 9 Scalias would have essentially the same effect on our nation as 9 Sotomayors, you're disconnected from reason.
I'm simply using the obvious to point out that while you may be frustrated at the choices, you have no superior position from which to attack someone for advocating a lessor of two evils position. Especially when there is a 99.9% chance that the outcome will be one of the two major parties prevailing.
You ain't that smart and the audience ain't that dumb.
Thank you!
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...global-warming/
Fellow traveller. Geeze.