Global Warming (cont.) Let's cut through the crap. by chrisisall

My take is: Even if Global Warming is not man-made (I think it is, but for the sake of argument), I see no downside to trying to scale back our consumption.

One, no matter what the oil companies, and their cheerleaders say, we will eventually run out of petroleum. Seems like it's a good time to start looking at alternatives. We're living in the 21st century now, lets start looking at the future.

Two, pollution is bad(M'Kay). I don't like breathing dirty air, and don't know any who does. Cutting down on emmissions will only help in that regard.

Three: What if GW is man-made? There is evidence both ways, but when our choices are: best case scenario - nothing big changes and we trudge on, or worst case scenario - we, as a species, die out; it seems that the best course of action would be to hedge our bets. It'd really suck if we waited untill it was too late before we had definitive proof.

The only downside I can see if that it hurts the bottom lines of big corporations - to which I say: So What? Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

Storymark, just takin' a shot here: You like the economics of the Star Trek 'Verse, don't ya?

I know I do Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 11:23 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
The only downside I can see if that it hurts the bottom lines of big corporations - to which I say: So What? Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

The CEO's will take a pay cut so as not to pass on the financial burden to the consumer, not likely. If you start to tax big corporations over environmental concerns it will be you and I who will ultimately foot the bill.

Perhaps another down side will be loss of individual freedom. If global warming is 'man-made' than people should stop making 'man'. How happy would you be if the Government started telling you if and when you could procreate?

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 11:37 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
The only downside I can see if that it hurts the bottom lines of big corporations - to which I say: So What? Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

The CEO's will take a pay cut so as not to pass on the financial burden to the consumer, not likely. If you start to tax big corporations over environmental concerns it will be you and I who will ultimately foot the bill.

The trouble, of course, is that mosst people have an exceedingly difficult time seeing past their own lifetime, let alone, three to four generations ahead.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 11:39 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
1) IS the sea level rising?
2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?
3) ARE the polar caps being reduced in size/mass?

There, three simple questions, can we come to an agreement on just these three questions?
I mean, doesn't a yes to any one of these alarm you?

And has anyone besides Citizen actually read this?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html

Don't suppose you know of any books that present the case in a dispassionate way? I'm not interested in any I-told-you-so-Bush-is-the-devil sort of thing, but that's all I seem to be able to find.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Thay've been bilking the American people for decades, and in the case of the oil industry, have made an art form of it lately. Let their CEO's take a pay cut - they'll still be making more in an average day than most Americans in a year, so screw-'em.

Storymark, just takin' a shot here: You like the economics of the Star Trek 'Verse, don't ya?

I know I do Chrisisall

Only in a "I know it'll never happen" way.

I have no problem with capitalism, I just have no sympathy for the hardships of mega-corporations. Like the Home Depot CEO who go, what over $210 million as his severance package - and that was for doing a bad job?

And yeah, I know taxing those corporations will trickle down to the rest (about the only trickle-down theory that works), but does that mean we should just let them do as they will, unchecked? That'll only embolden them to screw us harder with less lube.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 11:47 AM

WRATCHIT

Its all a bunch of crap! LOL!

I just watched 'The Day After Tomorrow'.

__________________________________________________
Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?
www.bikerplanet.net

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Don't suppose you know of any books that present the case in a dispassionate way?

Books? I don't know, but there's this:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPu
blicationsSeaLevelRiseIndex.html
and more if you just google 'sea levels'.
Most seem not to be alarmist Bush-hating sites.

Reasonable Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 1:04 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
1) IS the sea level rising?
2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?
3) ARE the polar caps being reduced in size/mass?

There, three simple questions, can we come to an agreement on just these three questions?
I mean, doesn't a yes to any one of these alarm you?

I'm not concerned if what we are witnessing is a normal, natural cycle that occurs on this planet. Also, oversimplification of this issue does less, not more, to increase our understanding.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm not concerned if what we are witnessing is a normal, natural cycle that occurs on this planet.

I note that you included an "if" in there.

What if it's not part of a natural cycle?

I know you don't think it is, but what if you are wrong?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 4:31 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I know you don't think it is, but what if you are wrong?

Then that will be an interesting day.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 4:49 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hi all,

STORYMARK comes the closest to my position. Regardless of Global Warming, there are very good and provable reasons to change fuels and reduce toxins.

It's not important that ANYONE believe in Global Warming, as the steps that Global Warming advocates are suggesting are able to be implemented for good reasons that have nothing to do with Global Warming.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 6:19 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Then that will be an interesting day.

Then February 2nd, aside from being groundhog day, might just be an interesting day for you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_re_us/warming_climate_report

This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate...the early draft adds: "An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation."

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 22, 2007 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
I know you don't think it is, but what if you are wrong?

Then that will be an interesting day.

Shoulda seen that coming...

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:49 AM

FLATTOP

I see there being no reason not to develop alternative fuels.
Nuclear power plants - Sure there's a potential terrorist threat, and the spent fuel has to get stored somewhere (just a thought... why not bust up the rods mix 'em with dirt, and put 'em back where they came from? Hadda dig that go-se out of the ground somewhere), but it's not nearly as big a problem as coal fired plants.

Wind - I drove past a couple'a wind farms. Very pretty in a 'Dutch Windmill' kind'a way. Course it's not always windy...

Solar - Might get cloudy. What with changing weather patterns and all.

Alternate fuel vehicles - Perhaps mandate that all new vehicles MUST NOT use any petroleum. That way all the folk who buy/lease new vehicles every few years will be on the leading edge of emissions reduction. What to do with the dead batteries? (see nuclear fuel disposal above)
I ran some numbers (got a spreadsheet that'll calculate it for you if you're interested). Punched in fuel cost per gallon, miles per year, and miles per gallon and figured that my 2000 F150 @ 8,000 MPY, 18MPG costs about $1,333.00/year to fuel @ $3.00/Gallon. I own it, so no monthly payments. @5.00/Gallon, it's $2,000/year.
Why is this important? Because it shows that no matter how fuel inefficient my truck is, I'm better off keeping it in repair for say $100/month than I would be buying a brand new alternative fuel vehicle. As alternative fuel vehicles become more and more prevalent, the realative supply of fuel will increase, and the cost of fuel will go down, further discouraging my changing out my vehicle, and getting consumers to pressure the government to allow the manufacture of gasoline engines. Until a break point is reached. If the price of fuel is fixed at say double the cost of alternate fuel/Gal (difference between cost of fuel and double cost of alternative fuel is made up with taxes). Fuel consumption initially goes down, cost of fuel goes down/tax goes up. Eventually not enough fuel will be sold to sustain manufacture, and price will rise/tax go down. Once combined cost of manufacture/minimum tax exceeds (double alternative cost)/Gal, let the price continue to rise on it's own, thus increasing cost pressure to buy a newer (alternative fuel mandatory) vehicle.
Of course, this will only work if EVERY VEHICLE is REQUIRED to use ONLY alternative fuels. Americans like their vehicles to be big. If there is a loophole for commercial trucks, and all of the other vehicles are tiny econo-boxes, Americans will buy commercial vehicles. That's why mini-vans became popular folks! The station wagon (most popular family car around until it suddenly disappeared) died when cars were required to meet CAFE fuel efficiency standards. Suddenly the mini-van appears and is hugely popular. Mini-vans are built on truck frames, not car frames, and are thus exempt from fuel efficiency standards (and a bunch of safety standards as well!)
Sorry for the hijack/rant.

----------
Vote for Firefly http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Sign up NOW! http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=25704
More Information: http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:56 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
1) IS the sea level rising?

Yes. I visited the ocean last year and stayed several hours. When I arrived the ocean was about 30 feet away but it kept getting closer and closer. I got scared and left but I assume its still rising. Saw it with my own eyes.

Quote:

2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?

Yes. I think that we can all agree that by July its going to be really hot.

Quote:

3) ARE the polar caps being reduced in size/mass?

Naturally. I don't know much about ice, but I do know polar bears and the poor bears have no place to live which is why there are more polar bears alive today then there ever were in the past. And all because of their shrinking habitat.

You forgot the obvious question number 4: Is the sky falling? Of course it is...look at all the chickens...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm not concerned if what we are witnessing is a normal, natural cycle that occurs on this planet. Also, oversimplification of this issue does less, not more, to increase our understanding.

Our understanding should be that it IS happening, and the debate should be how to deal with it, but it seems some refuse to believe anything of any signifigance is happening at all, and that's why the simplification; I wanted to see who rejects the scientific data (as well as the observations any normal person can make)to say "There is no global warming phenomina happening". Once that sillyness is put aside, we can ask ourselves how to approach this (like: don't but a house right[/] on the water?).
If we STOPPED adding ANYTHING to the greenhouse gasses, that would only slow down what's happening (and maybe not even very much, IMO). We need to plan for a day when Venice is an interesting spot to scuba dive to see an underwater city, and further on when the cooling takes place we need to have energy sources to draw upon, seeing as fossil fuels will have been played out.

Did I make any sense?Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:10 AM

Hero, that was actually funny!
(Doesn't add much to the discussion, but then when has that ever been a priority for me, right?)

Hot hot hot Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:45 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hero, that was actually funny!
(Doesn't add much to the discussion, but then when has that ever been a priority for me, right?)

What can we really add to this discussion?

Conservatives: No its not!
Liberals: Yes it is!
Moderates: Could be...
ALGore: Cars, bad.
Big Oil: Cars, good.
Big Ass: Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm running for President.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

1) IS the sea level rising?
Yes, the sea level is rising. But this doesn't answer two questions - 1) is it due to global warming? and 2) is global warming due to man?

2) IS the mean temperature of the planet increasing?
Yes, undoubtedly. More is some places, less in others, but going up, on average. More important, mean ocean temperature is rising.

3) ARE the polar caps being reduced in size/mass?
Again, yes. Both have experienced notable reduction in area and thickness.

-----------------

What you will get though are arguments such as:

1) yes the sea level is rising but not due to global warming

2) yes the earth is warming but it's just part of a natural cycle

3) yes global ice is disappearing (not just from the polar caps) but it's not due to warming

-----------------
However, IN ADDITION, global CO2 is the highest it's been in the last 250Million years. And CO2 is unambiguously a greenhouse gas (one which absorbs radiation as heat rather than allowing it to be re-radiated back into space.) This puts the earth on a new and geologically unpredictable course. But rather than use Occam's razor the come to the simplest explanation for these phenomena they prefer to posit all sorts of exceptions and coincidences as to why these things might just be happening all at the same time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:13 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Our understanding should be that it IS happening, and the debate should be how to deal with it, but it seems some refuse to believe anything of any signifigance is happening at all, and that's why the simplification; I wanted to see who rejects the scientific data (as well as the observations any normal person can make)to say "There is no global warming phenomina happening". Once that sillyness is put aside, we can ask ourselves how to approach this (like: don't but a house right on the water?).
If we STOPPED adding ANYTHING to the greenhouse gasses, that would only slow down what's happening (and maybe not even very much, IMO). We need to plan for a day when Venice is an interesting spot to scuba dive to see an underwater city, and further on when the cooling takes place we need to have energy sources to draw upon, seeing as fossil fuels will have been played out.

Did I make any sense?Chrisisall

Sorry, but you presume that our understanding SHOULD be that man made global warming is happening. Why ? Based on what? This all reminds me of how our ancestors, living in caves,must have viewed a solar eclipse. " Why...we've never seen this sort of thing before! Something MUST be done! And quickly! "

The Earth is far older and far more resilient than most humans can comprehend. Prove me wrong in 30-40 yrs, and then I'll revisit the issue. But you'd better come up with far more than has been presented so far. A LOT MORE.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:19 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Prove me wrong in 30-40 yrs, and then I'll be convinced.

But we won't be around in 30-40 years! Didn't you hear!? The sky is falling!!

Seriously though:

Quote:
Why ? Based on what?

Scientific evidence.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
I know you don't think it is, but what if you are wrong?

Then that will be an interesting day.

Shoulda seen that coming...

Just like any other?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:09 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Prove me wrong in 30-40 yrs, and then I'll be convinced.

But we won't be around in 30-40 years! Didn't you hear!? The sky is falling!!

Seriously though:

Quote:
Why ? Based on what?

Scientific evidence.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Sorry, but I hate to pull the 'Master of the Obvious' number on ya here, but the "scientific evidence" is what is in question. Not only the methodologies being used, but the length of time, or lack there of , this whole issue has been studied.

Point of fact, many scientist, non bought and paid for by evil BIG OIL, dispute the whole hysteria of man induced global warming.

It's much like the embryonic stem cell issue. Most folks only hear 'stem cells' and figure it's all the same issue. It's not. EMBRYONIC stem cell research , while not banned here in the US, is proving to be near worthless at finding any cures or treatments. Last I heard, the grand total of successful treatments from ESC = 0, while those from other sources, adult stem cells, chord blood, etc.... are > 100. And yet the mainstream media are able to con the masses out in the world that Bush is against 'stem cell' research. Which is 100% false.

And while that's for another thread, the basic con game by the willing accomplices in the media is the same. Only give folks a small amount of info so they feel they know what they're talking about, when in reality the wool is being pulled their eyes . That way, when any one with a dissenting opinion comes along ( like me ), then the dumb masses will wail and gnash their teeth at the infidel. All because they think they know, when in fact...... they really don't.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap,

"many scientist, non bought and paid for by evil BIG OIL"

In your other thread you had two links to http://www.worldclimatereport.com, a self-avowed anti-global warming blog. It's content is uncredited editorials. It's staff consists of:
Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels
Contributing Editor: Robert C. Balling, Jr.
Contributing Editor: Robert E. Davis
Administrator: Paul C. Knappenberger.

A cursory look at their credentials, the places they work for and their funding shows them all to be conservatives receiving money from big oil. Four is not a number I'd call 'many', and they also fail on the 'big oil' criterion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:23 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

It seems that soon we will all have more material to debate.

A report is soon to be released, backed by numerous countries and a plethora of researchers.

It will be an interesting read.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 8:45 PM

America loves a winner!

Sorry rue, but merely accepting money from Big Oil , as you claim, does not make them guilty. OF course the energy companies are going to respond to a global kabal intent on destroying them. How else are they supppose to respond when attacked by a global communist movement posing as an enviromentlally aware gruop?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry rue, but merely accepting money from Big Oil , as you claim, does not make them guilty. OF course the energy companies are going to respond to a global kabal intent on destroying them. How else are they supppose to respond when attacked by a global communist movement posing as an enviromentlally aware gruop?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Raptor,

That is a very valid argument. Or it would be if anyone else had made it. Unfortunately, you set the premise further up in the thread that your sources were not paid by 'Big Oil.' Now you are saying that they are and it doesn't matter. And maybe it doesn't. But you said that thing before, and now it's hurting credibility.

For my own part, I believe that most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:57 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry rue, but merely accepting money from Big Oil , as you claim, does not make them guilty. OF course the energy companies are going to respond to a global kabal intent on destroying them. How else are they supppose to respond when attacked by a global communist movement posing as an enviromentlally aware gruop?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Raptor,

That is a very valid argument. Or it would be if anyone else had made it. Unfortunately, you set the premise further up in the thread that your sources were not paid by 'Big Oil.' Now you are saying that they are and it doesn't matter. And maybe it doesn't. But you said that thing before, and now it's hurting credibility.

For my own part, I believe that most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Anthony, 2 quick comments. 1st, ONE of my sources wasn't supported by big oil. That's relevant because it shows how even those working FOR the global warming side still are capable of fudging the numbers, intentionally or not, and arriving at false conclusions. This is by no means a cut n dry debate. 2nd, You said that YOU BELIEVE most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research. So, where does that leave us ? What about when research is done to debunk a position which a scientist initially disagrees with, but after having done the research, finds the opposite conclusion of that he intended to find ? A prime example is Bjorn Lomborg.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA

So, has anyone here even yet asked some high-end meteorologists about it ?

Interesting answers you will get.

On this issue I feel there is simply not enough data that is unpartisan for me to contribute intelligently to the discussion, not that it seems to stop anyone else...

But based on my convos with a certain meteorologist who told me it'd be a good idea to move north before "the big one" wiped out NOLA and the gulfcoast seaboard (almong with the fact that texas is a nasty state full of hostile smallminded folk) I would tend to think they might know something useful relative to the issue.

Just a guess, mind you, as this particular brand of science is so far out of my knowledge base I can't mentally connect on it and thus am unable to contribute to the debate usefully beyond that suggestion.

I do not know, I couldn't tell ya.
And that's about as honest an answer as you'll get from anyone.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The high end meteorologists who get to play with the high end supercomputers are busy trying to figure out how much global warming and where. They've gotten past the 'if' stage.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:30 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The high end meteorologists who get to play with the high end supercomputers are busy trying to figure out how much global warming and where. They've gotten past the 'if' stage.

The 'high end' ones ? Can ya name any ? Other than The Weather Channel's "climate expert", Heidi Cullen. Sure, she may be cute and all, but I'm not sure the thugs at TWC and their McCarthyism tactics " DO you now or have you ever denied global warming is real or that it wasn't caused by mankind? " to be overly helpful in this discussion. I'll take the side of James Spann, thank you very much.

" "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh," - James Spann.

Gee, I've not seen this sort of 'open spirit' to dialogue since the HRCC locked up Galileo for his views on planetary alignment.

Amazing.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The high end meteorologists who get to play with the high end supercomputers are busy trying to figure out how much global warming and where. They've gotten past the 'if' stage.

The developed scientific world has come to the correct conclusion, maybe the backward theocratic states will join us in enlightment, some day

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:22 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
The developed scientific world has come to the correct conclusion, maybe the backward theocratic states will join us in enlightment, some day

Then explain why it is that the so called developed scientific world has resorted to using 15th century theocratic methods of intimidation?

What next, guided tours of The Weather Channel's basement ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:54 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I'll concede that there very well might be a warming problem here. I think you should watch Waterworld and study it so you'll know what to do when the icecaps do melt. Personally, I'm really looking forward to drinking my own pee after filtering it. Anybody else wonder why he chose to drink his own filtered pee when there was pretty much water every damn place you looked that he could have filtered instead?

Please... just don't tell me that my cigarette smoking is causing global warming. I'll stop smoking when you stop driving a car.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:12 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry rue, but merely accepting money from Big Oil , as you claim, does not make them guilty. OF course the energy companies are going to respond to a global kabal intent on destroying them. How else are they supppose to respond when attacked by a global communist movement posing as an enviromentlally aware gruop?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Raptor,

That is a very valid argument. Or it would be if anyone else had made it. Unfortunately, you set the premise further up in the thread that your sources were not paid by 'Big Oil.' Now you are saying that they are and it doesn't matter. And maybe it doesn't. But you said that thing before, and now it's hurting credibility.

For my own part, I believe that most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Anthony, 2 quick comments. 1st, ONE of my sources wasn't supported by big oil. That's relevant because it shows how even those working FOR the global warming side still are capable of fudging the numbers, intentionally or not, and arriving at false conclusions. This is by no means a cut n dry debate. 2nd, You said that YOU BELIEVE most research is funded by people with a vested interest in the outcome of said research. So, where does that leave us ? What about when research is done to debunk a position which a scientist initially disagrees with, but after having done the research, finds the opposite conclusion of that he intended to find ? A prime example is Bjorn Lomborg.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

I LOVE it when a scientist finds something he didn't intend to find. It spurs my belief that scientists can sometimes be open-minded people.

I recall a segment of a movie with Robin Williams. He was playing a psychiatrist who would eventually (temporarily) wake a lot of unresponsive patients from their age-old slumber.

At the beginning of the movie, he had just come off of a long-term project to extract a particular chemical from snails or slugs or something of the sort. He told this to a prospective employer, who replied, "But you can't do that! It won't work."

To which Robin Williams replied, "I know. I proved it."

That part always cracks me up. What was the name of that movie? Awakenings? I think so.

Anyhow, the fact that most scientists are not independantly wealthy means that they secure funding from somewhere else. 'Somewhere else' might be an altruistic wealthy individual with interests in pure science. But probably not.

Almost everyone who funds science has their own motive for doing so. Therefore, the source of funding is of only secondary concern to the scientific research itself. It is the research that should be carefully scrutinized, not the source.

Unfortunately, most of us aren't scientists, and don't feel qualified to scrutinize the science. So we scrutinize the source. Incorrectly so.

But anyway, Rap, the key is to not say "My sources aren't funded by Big Oil" and then have it found out that Big Oil did fund some of your sources. That makes you look bad.

Rather, the key is to say, "Everyone is funded by someone. Look at the science. Talk to me about the science."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:34 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Yep... that movie was called Awakenings. Good flick. I remember it making my mom cry when they all gave their paychecks to keep funding the medicine for the patients.

I put it right there with "Leaving Las Vegas" and "Angela's Ashes". Not sure which movie is sadder. If you ever want to temporarily relieve your "woe-is-me" syndrome for a few days, I recommend renting (or downloading) any one of those and giving them a quick watch.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:04 PM

SOUPCATCHER

I prefer to think of it in terms of engineering mechanics. This rock we call home has gone through numerous cycles of global warming and cooling. Kind of like the elastic region on a stress-strain curve where deformation is reversible. But then you throw man into the mix and we're adding stress to the system and moving things into the plastic region. In other words, our actions are amplifying existing trends and pushing them from reversible to irreversible. Mankind isn't responsible for global warming. Mankind is responsible for making global warming off 'da hook.

Although I'm open to the possibility that I'm just looking for a great American challenge. We used to be the country of "can do." Well, this is about as big a "can it be done?" problem as we've come across. So, rather than wasting our efforts trying to create our own version of the USSR domino theory in the Middle East, let's roll up our shirt sleeves and figure out what to do about lowering our global warming amplification.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap,

This is so beneath you ....

Quote:
"The 'high end' ones ? Can ya name any ? Other than The Weather Channel's "climate expert", Heidi Cullen. Sure, she may be cute and all, but I'm not sure the thugs at TWC and their McCarthyism tactics " DO you now or have you ever denied global warming is real or that it wasn't caused by mankind? " to be overly helpful in this discussion. I'll take the side of James Spann, thank you very much.

" "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh," - James Spann.

Gee, I've not seen this sort of 'open spirit' to dialogue since the HRCC locked up Galileo for his views on planetary alignment.

Amazing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:21 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Anthony wrote :
But anyway, Rap, the key is to not say "My sources aren't funded by Big Oil" and then have it found out that Big Oil did fund some of your sources. That makes you look bad.

No, you're missing the point. I INTENTIONALLY added in an expert that, while considered to be in agreement w/ global warming, he STILL points out errors and false conclusions of others who are trying to paint their evidence as 'proof' for global warming. He's pointing out the BAD SCIENCE which is promoted here. As for the other sources, I never claimed they were 'bought by big oil'. That was rue's claim, though rue gave ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE other than, " I looked into it, and I concluded blah blah blah... " . I have yet to find out that some of my sources are funded by any energy company.

Now, take a step back , breathe deep, and think for a moment. If there's no definitive answer yet to any of these questions, and you're claiming that such answers HAVE been verified,when in fact they have NOT, who looks bad here ?

Quote:
Thursday, January 25, 2007 09:28
Rap,

This is so beneath you ....

Sometimes absurdity is used to show the absurd. But I can't help but notice that you found NOTHING more to say about it. Does taking away accreditations or holding Nuremberg like trials for those who don't agree on global warming not sound at least a LITTLE bit like what Galileo faced in his day ?

I think the analogy is apt, if not for the eventual conclusion that Galileo was right, then at least for the treatment which he endured.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But I can't help but notice that you found NOTHING more to say about it." Not sure if you work a job or not. I do. I'm often away for a few days at a time, post once or twice then have to leave again. Life calls, and so on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 1:34 AM

Rue.

Please don't feed the Trolls.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 4:03 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"But I can't help but notice that you found NOTHING more to say about it." Not sure if you work a job or not. I do. I'm often away for a few days at a time, post once or twice then have to leave again. Life calls, and so on.

You took the time , twice now, to reply to the post, and both times, you said nothing. I don't see how you can blame your job, the real world , or the great Kazoo for your inability to reply. I didn't say " it took you long enough to reply ", but more specific , you didn't address the issue I brought up.

citizen ,
When I want your opinion...., nope, I'll never want your opinion.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 4:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When I want your opinion...., nope, I'll never want your opinion.

Yes yes, we've already established you have no interest in anyone's opinion but your own, on numerous occasions.

Oh shit, now I'm doing it!

Citizen

Please. Don't. Feed. The. TROLLS!

Right, yeah sorry about that Citizen, won't happen again.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 4:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap,

I was thinking you weren't a troll, but now I'm changing my mind.

The first time I replied, very briefly, was due to the site being flakey, I was at work and I had better things to do that wait, and wait, and wait for pages to load, which only happened once every 6 or 7 tries.. This most recent time, it was like 10:30PM and I had to make sure the kiddle took her meds and went to bed. And now it's 06:30AM, I've been up since 04:30 hacking my lungs out and in an hour will have to take the kiddle to school before I get on with the rest of my oh so luxuriously free day. Not.

And I'm not sure exactly what you want me to reply to. You wanted me to defend Gore's movie. Since I'd have to check out which part you were talking about and since sea levels have never been my issue, I declined. You wanted me to address a letter written by a researcher. I did that. I said, and it was 100% up front, that I didn't know what his point was. He seemed to be making some very technical comments about another letter which wasn't available. I researched YOUR post, looking to see where he worked (bona fide) and went back over the last 5 years or so of his publications to see if he, as a global climate researcher, had reached a conclusion different from the mainstream. In that foray I couldn't find any indication one way or the other.

But in the grown-up world discussion doesn't generally happen like that. You say "my source says this". The other person says "I'm not sure what the point was." Then YOU say, "oh see, I have a recent editorial written by this guy, and this is what he thinks ...."

You OTOH seem to think that just b/c you find a link you're absolved of actually discussing the topic. " See! I have a link too !! :sicks thumbs in ears and wiggles finger: I'm a grown up ! I have a link ! TA DA !!!"

When you want to discuss the topic and you come with something to say, I'll be happy to join in. But I'm not going to spend any more time researching your position for you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:11 AM

SHINYED

As they march in unison to the sea of koolaid, the global warming lemmings seem to have an answer for everything...every base is covered. If it's very hot in the country...well it's global warming; if it's very cold in the country....well it's global warming. If there's a lot of storms & hurricanes...well it's global warming; if there aren't a lot of hurricanes...well it's global warming. Sounds alot like my wife, my bank, and my insurance company...they're never wrong & can change the rules whenever they want to advance their agenda.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 26, 2007 8:20 AM