Quote:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/02/025566.php

"Frozen Wasteland"

Oh, more from the global warming denier cult! Lookie. Somebody who might not understand the meaning of "increased variability" or "chaos".

Quote:
Oh, more from the global warming denier cult! Lookie. Somebody who might not understand the meaning of "increased variability" or "chaos".

Or,

"How to challenge science when you have none yourself."

The science used to be there until somebody figured out all the evidence was destroyed or lost. Not my fault.

I'm guessing you guys don't bring up the heat wave in Rio because of the, "its just a trend argument" for all the cold weather. A trend is one thing. Breaking records is not a trend. Unless of course it is a heat related record. Than its man-made global warming.

I don't know why you guys are fighting Al Gore's battle. He's a fucking pussy that leaves people to fight his battles for him. You like promoting some cunt's argument?

Quote:

Quote:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/02/025566.php

"Frozen Wasteland"

Oh, more from the global warming denier cult! Lookie. Somebody who might not understand the meaning of "increased variability" or "chaos".

No worries J_J, JIMV has to post about this, he only has three topics of discussion: Global warming is a myth, President Obama is a socialist who is going to spoil everything, and....

....errr.....

I guess he only has two topics.

No, wait!

Evolution denial.

Yeah, JIMV is a real three tool guy.

It's been an intersting thing seeing the teabaggers go from "Global warming does not exist" over to "Man made global warming does not exist."

They are on a fighting retreat.

Let's see what George Bush said:

"President Bush has committed America to an aggressive strategy to meet the challenge of long-term global climate change by reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent over the next 10 years."
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com Aug 30, 2003

"Q: What about global warming?

BUSH: It

Quote:
I'm guessing you guys don't bring up the heat wave in Rio because of the, "its just a trend argument" for all the cold weather. A trend is one thing. Breaking records is not a trend. Unless of course it is a heat related record. Than its man-made global warming.

It is just as silly to claim a hot weather event as evidence of AGW as it is to claim a cold event as evidence against.

This is just weather.

Sadly there has been misinformation spread on all aspects of the matter. Once science is politicized the discussion is not of science but of politics and agenda.

I'm talking about the science and not politics. What happens when a volcano erupts? Can you imagine the amount of shit Krakatoa put into the atmosphere? That certainly changed weather. A lot more than this so-called global warming that keeps backfiring on people that claim there is science behind it. Where is the science that isn't subjective? Watching the weather channel doesn't count.

There is little dispute among scientists. Rather the dispute is among politicians, special interest groups and those with certain political beliefs.

This is why it is nigh impossible to cite a source reflecting the views of those who deny AGW other than blogs and op-eds.

First I will say that they are obviously not alone in this, to blunt it to something that will not incite emotions, hopefully, but it is only correct and merely a simple observation to state that: Americans are one of the most well manipulated group of cows, of an egotistical sociopathic nature that this planet has seen for many a regime.

You've got a really fast moving and well oiled machine manipulating that steaming pile of unthinking masses, there.

My hats off to your controllers. (Or 'Herders', if you find that less offensive)

Ouch!

Quote:
I'm talking about the science and not politics. What happens when a volcano erupts? Can you imagine the amount of shit Krakatoa put into the atmosphere?

Yeah, I can imagine it. I can also understand how to measure it.

Quote:

That certainly changed weather. A lot more than this so-called global warming that keeps backfiring on people that claim there is science behind it.

Well, now you've made a claim, please provide your affirmative evidence.

That's how science works. Thank you for playing.

Oh, and by the way, how do you account for the change in surface vs. upper atmosphere temperature?

This I gotta hear.

Quote:
There is little dispute among scientists. Rather the dispute is among politicians, special interest groups and those with certain political beliefs.

This is why it is nigh impossible to cite a source reflecting the views of those who deny AGW other than blogs and op-eds.

Well, according to the majority here, it's all a plot, apparently, a plot involving 10,000 thermometers all across the globe that are mechnically read and so on.

Amazing how they did that, eh?

Quote:
Well, according to the majority here, it's all a plot, apparently, a plot involving 10,000 thermometers all across the globe that are mechanically read and so on.

Amazing how they did that, eh?

Indeed.

The debate over Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a scientific debate, but rather a political and economic battle. Misinformation and marketing are thus the primary weapons - not facts.

I'm amazed that so many that assert they are individual thinkers are completely swayed by political posturing on issues concerning science. As a society we would rather listen to pundits, politicians and other public figures - talking well outside their field - then to the scientists themselves. Scary.

The typical AGW skeptic has an agenda. The scientific findings of AGW necessarily have tremendous political and economic consequence. Once these monsters awake, the debate changes from that of science to that of self-interest.

Examples, beginning 20+ years ago:

In the early 1990's energy interests - such as the National Coal Association - created The Information Council on the Environment (ICE). It's express purpose was to undermine AGW with a disinformation campaign.

ICE hired PR firms and conducted campaigns aimed at less-educated individuals, directly attacked the proponents of global warming, and ran ads comparing AGW to fairy tales (references to Chicken Little, ads that headlined "Some believed the earth was flat", etc. Some of you probably remember the ad, "If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis getting colder?"

Similarly in the late 1980's the industry advocacy group, Global Climate Coalition (Exxon, Ford, Shell Oil, Texaco, BP, GM, Chrysler, etc.) engaged in similar tactics and deliberately spread misinformation.

This, even though GCC's own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted. see, e.g., NewYork Times article

Then we have the Bush administration enthusiastically thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy and public perception, including the US' stance on the Kyoto Protocol. Why are we letting Exon influence foreign policy?

We also have the Bush administration engaging in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policy makers and the public: "The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues." Christian Science Monitor article

This is not about science. It is about politics and economics.

I still want to see the caption:

Aliens expose themselves!

And the picture..with a UFO in the background..and then a group of little grey aliens with trenches and rubber boots running around scaring people, exposing themselves.

The scientists threw away the data! Of course, there are disputes among the science community now. In the meantime, now the south is experiencing record cold.

Quote:
Americans are one of the most well manipulated group of cows, of an egotistical sociopathic nature that this planet has seen for many a regime.

Well, I guess we had that coming.

Don't we all!

Quote:
The scientists threw away the data! Of course, there are disputes among the science community now.

Wrong.

There have been a few incidents of stupid behavior, inspired by the incredible political pressure that has been placed on the issue. A few bad data points does not change the overall picture. There is no dispute among scientists - only among pundits and conservative political commentators.

Again, show us the disputed science - not the op-ed pages, not the conservative blogs, not the rants.

As I previously established, energy companies and conservatives have worked for decades to manipulate public perception and to deliberately misstate the facts - all to protect their interests.

They are terrified; their business model is threatened.

Sadly, this misinformation campaign has been successful.

While it is easy to identify these acts and their economic motivations, where are the groups spending decades and millions to mislead the public into thinking global warming exists?

These groups simply do not exist. There is no conspiracy to establish AGW.

Quote:
In the meantime, now the south is experiencing record cold.

And Vancouver is experiencing record warmth.

While each of these is weather, not climate, they illustrate the increased chaos of a system into which additional energy has been introduced.

A better term is "global weirding." The extra heat (energy) is changing the world's climate. Some areas are drier, others wetter, some colder and others warmer.

Record warmth in Rio as well. You still haven't explained how a single volcano eruption can put more crap into the atmosphere to contribute to weather changes than man-made crap combined throughout history. Man would have to make aerosal cans and internal combustion motors for millions of years to match mother nature's own resources. I take that back. Man will never catch up with mother nature. Earth 7 Humans 0. You see when mother nature creates the next drought or little ice age we can't blame ourselves. There is no opportunity cost if Earth is doing her own thing. If there was one thread of evidence that Man caused the earthquake in Haiti than there would be no reason to fear the inevitable. That we all got to die sometime and life is a shit sandwich and everyday we take another bite. The whole man-made global warming is going to kill us all is just another industry no different than the UFO industry in my own backyard. But that don't make it true.

Oliver Stone is a great writer and gets to the point. The circumstances don't matter. They are out of your control. You take what you get. As for the mad-made global warming crowd? Until they come up with something tangible they are acting no different than Sgt. O'Neill. A self-serving little prick.

Quote:
O'NEILL
(pleads)
Hey Bob, come on! Talk to me hunh, it's your friend Red, I'm only asking you for three days chief ...

BARNES
I'm talking to you Red and I'm telling you no. Get
back to your position.

O'NEILL
(grabs him, desperate)
Bob, I gotta bad feeling about this, I ... I'm
telling you I got a bad feeling, man, I don't think
I'm gonna make it .. y'know what I mean?

BARNES
(quietly)
... everybody gotta die sometime Red ... Get back to
your foxhole.

A look in his eyes. Very remote, very cold, silencing O'Neill. Barnes walks off.

Things are really going OK, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Pwf9kql7E

The volcano "issue" is easy. It's pushed solely on the conservative blogs.

They create these position statements by determining the desired result from the outset, searching for claims that appear to support it, and conveniently discarding those facts which demonstrate the position is untrue.

Anti-evolutionists have been doing this for years. And failing miserably.

The "volcano" position relies on the clearly false assertion that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity.

Human activity releases roughly 30 billion tons of CO2/year. Above ground and underwater volcanoes emit a mere 200 million tons or so each year. See, e.g., Gerlach, et al. Marland, et al.

That is, those poor volcanoes don't stand a chance in a CO2 race.

Moreover, we can tell what CO2 is created by human activity v. that which is natural. The characteristics of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can only be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon.

Again, where is the dispute among scientists?

There is none.

The only dispute is among those of different political persuasions. Conservatives deny AGW - for obvious economic and world view reasons. They also deny evolution - not because of the science but because they perceive it as a conflict with their religious beliefs.

You may want to start checking out the "facts" behind the arguments and claims made on conservative sources. They are rarely based in reality. It is embarrassing to cite these bald claims as facts.

It is actually in the conservatives' best interest to accept AGW. The rate of climate change, its specific causes, and its impact on modern civilization is going to be devastating to the status quo. Our agriculture and industry is dependent on a relatively stable climate. If this stability is lost our current way of life is gone.

Quote:
The volcano "issue" is easy. It's pushed solely on the conservative blogs.

They create these position statements by determining the desired result from the outset, searching for claims that appear to support it, and conveniently discarding those facts which demonstrate the position is untrue.

Anti-evolutionists have been doing this for years. And failing miserably.

The "volcano" position relies on the clearly false assertion that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity.

Human activity releases roughly 30 billion tons of CO2/year. Above ground and underwater volcanoes emit a mere 200 million tons or so each year. See, e.g., Gerlach, et al. Marland, et al.

That is, those poor volcanoes don't stand a chance in a CO2 race.

Moreover, we can tell what CO2 is created by human activity v. that which is natural. The characteristics of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can only be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon.

Again, where is the dispute among scientists?

There is none.

The only dispute is among those of different political persuasions. Conservatives deny AGW - for obvious economic and world view reasons. They also deny evolution - not because of the science but because they perceive it as a conflict with their religious beliefs.

You may want to start checking out the "facts" behind the arguments and claims made on conservative sources. They are rarely based in reality. It is embarrassing to cite these bald claims as facts.

It is actually in the conservatives' best interest to accept AGW. The rate of climate change, its specific causes, and its impact on modern civilization is going to be devastating to the status quo. Our agriculture and industry is dependent on a relatively stable climate. If this stability is lost our current way of life is gone.

It's your last paragraph where you fully lose me, Elk.

There IS disagreement among climate scientists. Almost none of them refute ACF (Anthropogenic Climate Forcings) but they do disagree about which ACFs are more significant and the severity of their influence.
Google Roger S Pielke Sr. Every bit as credentialed and well known as Hansen, Schmit, Mann

The 3 ACFs are:

Land Use
Aerosol Emissions (most significantly black carbon)
Green House Gasses (GHGs)

The gamut among scientists seems to run from :

Skeptics (a small minority Spencer for ex.)
Lukewarmists
Warmists
Alarmists

In spending the last 3 years reading peer reviewed lit, not political blogs,
I have moved from alarmist to lukewarmist.

Did you know a recent peer reviewed study of the Himalayan glacier traces it's loss of ice to black carbon (soot) ? BC is 90% responsible.
Another peer reviewed study concludes that full glacier melt is 300 years away.
It is not 2035 as the IPCC claimed. The IPCC has now rescinded it's 2035 prediction.

The IPCC document is a political doc. not a scientific one . It was writen by politicians and many of the scientist signatorees are unhappy with the way their conclusion were "rewritten"

The alarmists: Hansen, Mann et. al. have succumbed to politics as much as the right.
They have tried to demonize moderate scientists and label them (incorrectly) as deniers.

A Professor of the Philosophy of Science at Oxford just wrote an excellent essay on the damage that Climategate and the politicization of science by the alarmists have damaged science's credibility in our society.

Sorry, no links, I am far too lazy but you can easily google all this.

I always see you take a very balanced approach to issues and I would be curious to see if your opinion changes even a little if you read Pielke especially.

Far the record, I am a lib, voted for Obama.

Quote:
They create these position statements by determining the desired result from the outset, searching for claims that appear to support it, and conveniently discarding those facts which demonstrate the position is untrue.

So, that is what volcanoes do to the atmosphere. I pulled "volcano" out of my ass not some blog.

Quote:
Far the record, I am a lib, voted for Obama.

So, this is all your fucking fault!

Quote:

Quote:
Far the record, I am a lib, voted for Obama.

So, this is all your fucking fault!

Of course. Just ask my 2 ex wives and any ex or current girlfriend.

Quote:

Quote:
They create these position statements by determining the desired result from the outset, searching for claims that appear to support it, and conveniently discarding those facts which demonstrate the position is untrue.

So, that is what volcanoes do to the atmosphere. I pulled "volcano" out of my ass not some blog.

http://lmmfao.com/videos.php?id=1259

Quote:
There IS disagreement among climate scientists. Almost none of them refute ACF (Anthropogenic Climate Forcings) but they do disagree about which ACFs are more significant and the severity of their influence.
Google Roger S Pielke Sr. Every bit as credentialed and well known as Hansen, Schmit, Mann

. . . . . .

The IPCC document is a political doc. not a scientific one . It was writen by politicians and many of the scientist signatorees are unhappy with the way their conclusion were "rewritten"

I couldn't agree more with your entire post. You nailed it.

I have great respect for Pielke and appreciate his site. The give and take and honest discussion among knowledgeable peers is a delight.

I should have been more careful with my language. You are correct; there is dispute as to a number of the specifics.

Your assessment of the IPCC document is also dead on.

My last paragraph was a bit of free form musing. I am trying to understand why a scientific matter has become a political question - feeling rather than fact. Thoughts?

Quote:
I pulled "volcano" out of my ass not some blog.

I'm afraid this is what most skeptics do as well; make things up.

I'm not a skeptic. I'm just not buying your line of shit. You must have a blog.

Quote:
My last paragraph was a bit of free form musing. I am trying to understand why a scientific matter has become a political question - feeling rather than fact. Thoughts?

Because you keep...I don't know...bringing up politics as some sort of lame excuse for displacement, or is it rationalization? Take your pick. It's defense and a poor one too. When are you going to go on the offense? That's when you kick all our asses with "overwhelming" evidence.

Next defense will be the tired old intellectualization. Not that there is anything wrong with it.

Quote:
It's defense and a poor one too. When are you going to go on the offense? That's when you kick all our asses with "overwhelming" evidence.

Already accomplished. Every "criticism" you have raised has been easily squashed, replete with citations. Volcanoes? Oh, please . . .

I have yet to see a denier actually produce science. Instead, as a group, they rely on innuendo, profanity, name calling, conspiracy theories.

I remain interested in the connection between denying AGW and conservatives. The connection between energy producers who have campaigned against AGW for decades and conservatives in power is obvious - but why the conservative rank and file denial? It's not a religious issue, or is it?

On the other hand, why has AGW become a liberal issue? Al Gore used it to parlay a return to celebrity. His overplaying the issue in Michael Moore fashion was/is sickening.

If this was a scientific debate the lines would not so often be drawn according to political persuasion.

Quote:
I'm not a skeptic. I'm just not buying your line of shit. You must have a blog.

Nope. Sorry. I waste enough time on this forum as it is.

Quote:

That's one large exhaust pipe there. Completely harmless. All is well.

Has anybody brought up that Vancouver is normally dry during summer months and rainy, yes, rainy during winter months. So, why is the winter Olympics in Vancouver? It's been raining ever since it started. Last I heard rain sort of spoils winter Olympic games. Also, Vancouver gets about 6 weeks worth of temps below freezing. Other cities that have the same climate as Vancouver? Well, we could of had the winter Olympics at Seattle, Portland, Victoria, and the coast of Chile and Spain. No wonder Al Gore, and it seems like all the scientists, are missing.

BTW, that's not a volcano in the picture. It's a super cell thundertorm during the winter months near Vancouver.

Lamont, the snow part of the Olympics isn't actually in Vancouver.

I guess those idiot Canadians built a whole bunch of firebreaks up in the nearby mountains and the Olympic committee mistook them for ski resorts! It must have been all the BC Gold they were smoking.

Winter Olympics, in Vancouver?

Whaaaa?

Quote:
Lamont, the snow part of the Olympics isn't actually in Vancouver.

Where is it? In those mountains right on the edge of the city?

Whistler has cool wet winters and dry warm summers despite the altitude difference from Vancouver, which is 75 miles away. It gets about two weeks over 86 F and three weeks below negative 14 F. It is still within the Pacific Coast climate region. Practically part of a rain forest. It is the first time the Olympic committee has had its games at a tourist "community". We have a couple close by Roswell within the same distance. Ruidoso and Cloudcroft, that actually get snow rather than rain each winter. But I would never consider them Olympic material. Same thing goes for Whistler except the ignorant part of that is "they" "knew" global warming was around 4 years ago or whenever Vancouver was picked. If Global Warming is such a done deal than why gamble with Vancouver? So, it is all bullshit. It's a lousy location for something that can't be postponed. Let's put the winter Olympics right next to a rain forest.

All I'm driving at is it is not unusual for it to rain in and around Vancouver during winter months. Buffalo NY would have been a better idea.

WHAT IS UNBELIEVABLE IS THAT WHISTLER HAS HAD A RECORD YEAR UP UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY. 32' OF SNOW AND THE RECORD STILL HOLDS. THEN IT STARTING RAINING. NOT GLOBAL WARMING. RAIN. 32' OF SNOW AND THEN IT STARTED RAINING. TOUGH LUCK. THEY TOOK A CHANCE AND THEY GOT SLAMMED WITH BAD LUCK.

I assume that you know the Telegraph's Christopher Booker is an op-ed commentator, not a reporter and far from being a scientist.

He's the guy that claimed white asbestos posed no medical risk by misrepresenting the actual findings, asserts that proponents of "intelligent design" are "scientists," etc.

Hardly a reputable source.

BTW, I doubt anyone disputes volcanoes and other natural occurrences influence climate. But to claim that volcanoes have a greater influence than man is based solely on total fabrication.

Quote:
Haven't we had enough of faux 'scientists' on this issue? After all, about their every conclusion is filled with dung and fake data...

I suggest broadening your reading to include something not in the op-eds.

Quote:
I suggest your read those op-eds because folk are laughing at your 'science'...

Yes. Well-credentialed folk like Rush Limbaugh and other brilliant scientific minds of our time.

Scientific fact is not a question of public opinion swayed by well-funded special interest groups and their misinformation campaigns.

Question:

If AGW is a deliberate fallacy, who are the interests behind it and what are their goals?

We know who has been working to convince the public that AGW is fantasy, who is the opposition?

(And no, naming Al Gore does not answer the question.)

Again:

If AGW is a deliberate fallacy, who are the interests behind it and what are their goals?

We know who has been working to convince the public that AGW is fantasy, who is the opposition?

Catch-22 is the opposition depending on which side your on and it doesn't matter which side your on because they can do anything we can't stop them from doing. Take AGW for example. Catch-22 need not prove that AGW actually contains whatever evidence the accused violator is accused of not providing. I believe it is called, doublethink. Doublethink is fun. For example, I can at any point decide that AGW is valid. Nobody can stop me.

Quote:
Al Gore for one, he's made almost a billion on the scam...then all those scientists who rely on research money from government, then the folk who became famous as a result of their providing lip service to the cult, then all the folk who hope to get rich or gain political power from schemes like cap and tax...The global warming cult is full of folk with a vested interest in the scheme.

You violated the leave Al gore out of this condition. Gore. Yuck. No question he used the issue to get himself back into prominence.

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.

There may be those that think they can get themselves in a position to make a lot on cap and trade, and similar schemes. But keep in mind these people did not create the idea of global warming - cap in trade did not exist as a concept until AGW was seen as a problem.

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.

Research scientists hold little power. Those who want to get famous by paying lip service (who are these people?) similarly hold little sway. Besides we would need to get 100's of researchers throughout the world to all cook their data and falsify their conclusions.

If was only when Exxon and others formed groups to mislead and misinform the public that any seeming controversy began (about 20 years ago).

Exxon now accepts AGW, BTW.

Exxon's gone liberal?

So did Shrub!

Damn.

All JIMV has left is AM Talk radio!

Quote:
Exxon's gone liberal?

This was when public perception was that AGW was an issue. Now that the public pendulum is swinging again, perhaps Exxon will changes is group mindthink once again.

Amazing what good advertising will do. The majority of people actually believe that front wheel drive provides a better handling car. The reality is far different. FWD is far cheaper to manufacture and easier to package however - the manufacturers' real interest.

Even more amazing what sick advertising can do...