I wonder how this will be spun.....

[Dru]

Spin the black

[foraker]

besides, i'd like to see the answer not be 'well once all the wilderness has gone to hell people will stay at home and the problem will be solved'

[j_b]

It worries me that some people discard this information as biased liberal propaganda...

Some of it is.

 

oh yeah? like which part of the science is "liberal propaganda"?

 

...when in-fact, it's just science. There does not seem to be bias in this science.

Wherever people and money are involved, there is bias.

 

playing on words again ... individual bias cannot explain that 99.99% of the science says warming is real and to a great extent the result of antropogenic emissions due to burning of fossil fuels.

 

The argument is not as much about data as about causes. One study suggested that the greenhouse gases emitted during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) in the Philipines surpassed the entirety of all affects by humans since the Industrial Revolution.

 

 

source (reputable, please).

 

which greenhouse gas? certainly not CO2 (pinatubo was in 1991): http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/images/maunaloacarbondioxide.jpg

 

volcanoes have spewed 3 orders of magnitude less CO2 than we have in the last 150years.

 

if you are referring to sulfates they have a short lived (a few years) cooling effect.

 

if you are referring to water vapor it's a feedback not a forcing of climate.

 

What's it going to take to convince people?

Do their front yards have to be flooded from the ocean?

Do they have to be diagnosed with lung cancer from air pollution?

 

Yes.

 

stopping the spreading of disinformation about the respective role of volcanoes and anthropogenic emissions would be a good start.

[j_b]

Last time CAFE standards were improved was April 2003. Source

 

the CAFE standard for cars has been the same since 1990.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/NewPassengerCarFleet.htm

 

also note that the industry as a whole has no trouble meeting the standard and the mean of the car fleet is currently 2mpg greater than the standard (way to challenge them to improve fuel economy )

 

similar story for light trucks (the standard for 2005 has more or less been met since 1998!!!)

 

and then this: "Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards. These vehicles include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and large vans.

 

A study prepared for the Department of Energy, in February 2002, by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that 521,000 trucks with GVWR from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs were sold in calendar year 1999. The vast majority (82%) of these trucks are pickups and a significant number (24%) were diesel. At the end of 1999, there were 5.8 million of these trucks on the road accounting for 8% of the annual miles driven by light trucks, and 9% of light truck fuel use."

 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

 

I am not impressed ...

[Dechristo]

It worries me that some people discard this information as biased liberal propaganda...

Some of it is.

 

oh yeah? like which part of the science is "liberal propaganda"?

It was not suggested that "some of" the data portion of the science was "liberal propaganda" (although, we all know data can be manipulated if desired), but, that "some of" the reports of attributable affects are exagerated; this is promulgated by both the Left and Right. If you swalllow everything you hear and read as credible and are unable, or unwilling, to discern apart from political alignment implausibility, you will follow many primrose paths. You've witnessed many flamboyant scientific claims by both the Left and Right on this subject. I suspect you've read more into my statement than was there... again.

 

...when in-fact, it's just science. There does not seem to be bias in this science.

Wherever people and money are involved, there is bias.

 

playing on words again ... individual bias cannot explain that 99.99% of the science says warming is real...

No, money and people is a very effective formula for bias. Don't you question who funded research and speculate of bias if the results are not acceptable to you? Also, my statement reflected on the folly of those that write-off all of the data as "liberal hogwash"; it should be easy to construe my acceptance of the reality of global warming. It seems your biased judgment of me inhibits your interest in understanding what I write.

 

...and to a great extent the result of antropogenic emissions due to burning of fossil fuels.

There can be no doubt of an affect, it is the great extent that has yet to be quantified... doubtful it ever will; quite a complex equation, probably with variables yet to be known and defined.

 

The argument is not as much about data as about causes. One study suggested that the greenhouse gases emitted during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) in the Philipines surpassed the entirety of all affects by humans since the Industrial Revolution.

 

 

source (reputable, please).

 

which greenhouse gas? certainly not CO2 (pinatubo was in 1991): http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/images/maunaloacarbondioxide.jpg

 

Sorry, don't remember the study. I read it sometime around '95.

 

volcanoes have spewed 3 orders of magnitude less CO2 than we have in the last 150years.

Well, you've matched my "study suggested" statement with a patent claim. Very bold considering your claim requires at least three orders of magnitude more conjecture on the emissions from volcanoes in the last 150 years.

 

stopping the spreading of disinformation about the respective role of volcanoes and anthropogenic emissions would be a good start.

I agree.

[archenemy]

It worries me that some people discard this information as biased liberal propaganda...

Some of it is.

 

oh yeah? like which part of the science is "liberal propaganda"?

It was not suggested that "some of" the data portion of the science was "liberal propaganda" (although, we all know data can be manipulated if desired), but, that "some of" the reports of attributable affects are exagerated; this is promulgated by both the Left and Right. If you swalllow everything you hear and read as credible and are unable, or unwilling, to discern apart from political alignment implausibility, you will follow many primrose paths. You've witnessed many flamboyant scientific claims by both the Left and Right on this subject. I suspect you've read more into my statement than was there... again.

 

...when in-fact, it's just science. There does not seem to be bias in this science.

Wherever people and money are involved, there is bias.

 

playing on words again ... individual bias cannot explain that 99.99% of the science says warming is real...

No, money and people is a very effective formula for bias. Don't you question who funded research and speculate of bias if the results are not acceptable to you? Also, my statement reflected on the folly of those that write-off all of the data as "liberal hogwash"; it should be easy to construe my acceptance of the reality of global warming. It seems your biased judgment of me inhibits your interest in understanding what I write.

 

...and to a great extent the result of antropogenic emissions due to burning of fossil fuels.

There can be no doubt of an affect, it is the great extent that has yet to be quantified... doubtful it ever will; quite a complex equation, probably with variables yet to be known and defined.

 

The argument is not as much about data as about causes. One study suggested that the greenhouse gases emitted during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) in the Philipines surpassed the entirety of all affects by humans since the Industrial Revolution.

 

 

source (reputable, please).

 

which greenhouse gas? certainly not CO2 (pinatubo was in 1991): http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/images/maunaloacarbondioxide.jpg

 

Sorry, don't remember the study. I read it sometime around '95.

 

volcanoes have spewed 3 orders of magnitude less CO2 than we have in the last 150years.

Well, you've matched my "study suggested" statement with a patent claim. Very bold considering your claim requires at least three orders of magnitude more conjecture on the emissions from volcanoes in the last 150 years.

 

stopping the spreading of disinformation about the respective role of volcanoes and anthropogenic emissions would be a good start.

I agree.

 

I just wanted to quote something with this many quotes in it.

[Squid]

It worries me that some people discard this information as biased liberal propaganda...

Some of it is.

 

oh yeah? like which part of the science is "liberal propaganda"?

It was not suggested that "some of" the data portion of the science was "liberal propaganda" (although, we all know data can be manipulated if desired), but, that "some of" the reports of attributable affects are exagerated; this is promulgated by both the Left and Right. If you swalllow everything you hear and read as credible and are unable, or unwilling, to discern apart from political alignment implausibility, you will follow many primrose paths. You've witnessed many flamboyant scientific claims by both the Left and Right on this subject. I suspect you've read more into my statement than was there... again.

 

...when in-fact, it's just science. There does not seem to be bias in this science.

Wherever people and money are involved, there is bias.

 

playing on words again ... individual bias cannot explain that 99.99% of the science says warming is real...

No, money and people is a very effective formula for bias. Don't you question who funded research and speculate of bias if the results are not acceptable to you? Also, my statement reflected on the folly of those that write-off all of the data as "liberal hogwash"; it should be easy to construe my acceptance of the reality of global warming. It seems your biased judgment of me inhibits your interest in understanding what I write.

 

...and to a great extent the result of antropogenic emissions due to burning of fossil fuels.

There can be no doubt of an affect, it is the great extent that has yet to be quantified... doubtful it ever will; quite a complex equation, probably with variables yet to be known and defined.

 

The argument is not as much about data as about causes. One study suggested that the greenhouse gases emitted during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) in the Philipines surpassed the entirety of all affects by humans since the Industrial Revolution.

 

 

source (reputable, please).

 

which greenhouse gas? certainly not CO2 (pinatubo was in 1991): http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/images/maunaloacarbondioxide.jpg

 

Sorry, don't remember the study. I read it sometime around '95.

 

volcanoes have spewed 3 orders of magnitude less CO2 than we have in the last 150years.

Well, you've matched my "study suggested" statement with a patent claim. Very bold considering your claim requires at least three orders of magnitude more conjecture on the emissions from volcanoes in the last 150 years.

 

stopping the spreading of disinformation about the respective role of volcanoes and anthropogenic emissions would be a good start.

I agree.

 

I just wanted to quote something with this many quotes in it.

me too

[j_b]

It was not suggested that "some of" the data portion of the science was "liberal propaganda" (although, we all know data can be manipulated if desired), but, that "some of" the reports of attributable affects are exagerated;

 

what are you talking about? scientific reports or their press rendition? because it is clear that the sciencitifc reports are not propaganda.

 

this is promulgated by both the Left and Right. If you swalllow everything you hear and read as credible and are unable, or unwilling, to discern apart from political alignment implausibility, you will follow many primrose paths. You've witnessed many flamboyant scientific claims by both the Left and Right on this subject. I suspect you've read more into my statement than was there... again.

 

what i have especially noticed is your lack of clarity and your use of unsubstantiated 'suggestions'

 

No, money and people is a very effective formula for bias.

 

what money? do you mean academic salaries (a PhD starts at ~40k/year and a few finish at ~100k)? people? there are people of all convictions among researchers and establishing oneself against the dominant paradigm would be quite a coup. so if there are aspects of the system that may lead to conformity there are others that on the contrary promote innovations.

 

Don't you question who funded research and speculate of bias if the results are not acceptable to you?

 

academic freedom is possible because of funding independent from special interests and tenure. climate research funded by the fossil fuel industry does not meet any of these criteria. if i don't like the results of academic research i may question the science but not the funding. i may speculate of bias but it would individual bias, not that of an entire field.

 

It seems your biased judgment of me inhibits your interest in understanding what I write.

 

i understand perfectly well your desire to pass off part of the sciencitific research as resulting from political bias.

 

...and to a great extent the result of antropogenic emissions due to burning of fossil fuels.

There can be no doubt of an affect, it is the great extent that has yet to be quantified... doubtful it ever will; quite a complex equation, probably with variables yet to be known and defined.

 

the 'great extent' is greatly validated by the lack of compelling competing hypothesis and our ability to reproduce what we see only if anthropogenic emissions are included. to the best of our scientific knowledge (and we know much) much of the warming observed over the last century is due to fossil fuel emissions and certainly most of that observed in the last 20years

 

Sorry, don't remember the study. I read it sometime around '95.

 

seems like a flaky study considering the state of knowledge about Pinatubo and of its effect on climate in 1995 (4 years after Pinatubo). the quantities of gases were pretty much known, so were their effect (nothing fundamentally new since then)

 

volcanoes have spewed 3 orders of magnitude less CO2 than we have in the last 150years.

Well, you've matched my "study suggested" statement with a patent claim.

 

indeed. it is well known that we have spewed several 100 (~500) billion tons of CO2 whereas volcanoes are not thought to be responsible for more than a few 100million tons.

 

Very bold considering your claim requires at least three orders of magnitude more conjecture on the emissions from volcanoes in the last 150 years.

 

certainly not. not only, the uncertainties in the numbers above are small compared to the magnitude of their difference, but these numbers are in the published literature. unless, of course, you are suggesting there are many sources of volcanic CO2 that we do not know about, in which case you'd need to justify your statement.

[Fairweather]

No

 

CO2

 

Emissions

 

 

[Fairweather]

NO

 

CO2

 

EMISSIONS

 

 

[foraker]

Enormous CO2 emissions

[Dechristo]

 

i understand perfectly well your desire to pass off part of the sciencitific research published as resulting from political bias.

 

Good, this is what my reply to Bill was about.

[Dechristo]

 

Look directly into the lens... you'll remember nothing after the flash

[mec]

whatever people do 'fucks' up the environment in some way, no matter how good some sort of energy is versus another. Dams heat the water, kill fish, and prevent flooding. Nuclear plants are cool, but also heat up water, kill fish, and might blow up. Coal power plants spew shit into the air, but coal is cheap. Humans will go extinct one day just like the dinosaurs, and by using up earth's resources quicker, we are just speeding up our demise.

[j_b]

i understand perfectly well your desire to pass off part of the sciencitific research published as resulting from political bias.

 

Good, this is what my reply to Bill was about.

 

wtf? the lame use of double entendre won't get you very far.

 

first, my understanding your desire doesn't imply i condone it because the first meaning of understanding isn't "feeling sympathy for" but truly, "knowing".

 

second, a perusal of your answer to my first post on this page illustrates your willingness to play with words and assign arbitrary distinction between data and scientific analysis to hide your intentions (in spite of your denial). your aim seems to sow confusion and suggest that science is politically motivated. there is no science of the left or the right, there is simply good and bad science, which explains that the attempts at minimizing the role of humans in global warming simply doesn't get published in the peer-reviewed scientific press. this is neither a matter of opinion nor is it a contest in fairness and balance, but truly of what can be established with a significant probability of veracity: science has established that humans were responsible for a significant fraction of the global warming of the last 150years, that such warming (and its rate) was a threat to human societies and we should act yesterday to find alternatives to the burning of the fossil fuels.

 

third, your insistance that some scientific reports on climate are politically motivated (and we are forced to infer that you believe it is a significant phenomenon or you wouldn't mention it), forces me to ask you for specific examples (and don't quote a 1995 study that you can't attribute for it won't do).

[Jim]

The science on global warming has become unequicoal in the past five years. Cue arm-wavers: "it's all politically bias. We need more evidence"

 

I'm sure of the correct term, but ignorant and naive come to mind in describing the public and their susceptibility to this type of rhetoric, and their general lack of understanding on how science works. The other motivator in the US, of course, is the need to consume. Somehow that bigger truck, the McMansion in the burbs, jet ski, boat, yadda yadda, is a need, not a distracting toy.

 

The utimate need for immediate gratification now manifests itself in our national public policy. Whether the debt, or energy policy, or lack of investment in the country's future, we're going to leave our kids quite a legacy.

[JayB]

Unequivocal in the sense that a warming trend has been empirically confirmed, or that the model that stipulates that the said warming is solely the result of a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration has been proven?

 

I think that most of the people that you are writing off probably have a bit more nuanced take on the evidence that you give them credit for. Very few would look at a table of emperical data which documents the phenomenon and dismiss it out of hand. However, if they are displaying some of the critical thinking that you praise elsewhere, their thoughts will probably turn to the icecaps which covered a significant percentage of the land mass in the Northern hemisphere - at the very least - and conclude that their dissapearance was probably due to something other than the Clovis people's wasteful and self-indulgent lifestyle.

 

I personally don't think that people who want to know how much of the observed warming is due to increased C02 concentration due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and how much is due to natural cycles that we simply have no control over before taking drastic action are behaving irrationally at all.

 

Even once this information is known it would probably be a good idea to attempt to calculate the costs and the efficacy of making the changes required for maximal reductions in C02 emissions versus the benefits. If a massive cut in CO2 emissions will result in, at best, a net difference of 1 degree farenheit - but the costs would drive global economic growth below the levels of population growth - then the tradeoff might not be worth it - as the resultant poverty could very well lead to quite a bit more misery and environmental damage than the climate change itself would produce.

 

You and j_b ditched the cars and moved into the solar powered yurts yet?

[j_b]

Unequivocal in the sense that a warming trend has been empirically confirmed, or that the model that stipulates that the said warming is solely the result of a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration has been proven?

 

the models unequivocally show that if we don't account for greenhouse gas emissions, our ability to reproduce the current warming trend falls way short.

 

I think that most of the people that you are writing off probably have a bit more nuanced take on the evidence that you give them credit for. Very few would look at a table of emperical data which documents the phenomenon and dismiss it out of hand. However, if they are displaying some of the critical thinking that you praise elsewhere, their thoughts will probably turn to the icecaps which covered a significant percentage of the land mass in the Northern hemisphere - at the very least - and conclude that their dissapearance was probably due to something other than the Clovis people's wasteful and self-indulgent lifestyle.

 

if they are indeed critical thinkers, they shouldn't have too much trouble with the concept of a man-induced warming trend superimposed on a natural trend. are you a critical thinker?

 

I personally don't think that people who want to know how much of the observed warming is due to increased C02 concentration due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and how much is due to natural cycles that we simply have no control over before taking drastic action are behaving irrationally at all.

 

ignoring an overwhelming majority of independent experts telling you that much of the warming is induced by humans while listening to fossil fuel industry shills who tell you the opposite (and not so long ago still denied warming was occurring) is irrational. are you irrational?

 

Even once this information is known it would probably be a good idea to attempt to calculate the costs and the efficacy of making the changes required for maximal reductions in C02 emissions versus the benefits. If a massive cut in CO2 emissions will result in, at best, a net difference of 1 degree farenheit - but the costs would drive global economic growth below the levels of population growth - then the tradeoff might not be worth it - as the resultant poverty could very well lead to quite a bit more misery and environmental damage than the climate change itself would produce.

 

funny how you don't place the same burden of proof on those who claim going full bore into developping alternative sources of energy will destroy the economy ... i wonder why this would be! oh wait, you never place any burden of proof on the economists in charge ... neither do you expect them to be accountable for their failed predictions, yet it doesn't prevent you from trusting their words blindly as if they spoke the gospel. pretty transparent, really.

 

i don't have to tell you there are numerous studies which show that decreasing emissions, conservation, and developping alternatives will be good for the economy AND society. but of course you can't think past the silly calculus of borrowing to pay for windows you keep breaking in order to boost GDP.

 

You and j_b ditched the cars and moved into the solar powered yurts yet?

 

haha.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Unequivocal in the sense that a warming trend has been empirically confirmed, or that the model that stipulates that the said warming is solely the result of a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration has been proven?

 

I think that most of the people that you are writing off probably have a bit more nuanced take on the evidence that you give them credit for. Very few would look at a table of emperical data which documents the phenomenon and dismiss it out of hand. However, if they are displaying some of the critical thinking that you praise elsewhere, their thoughts will probably turn to the icecaps which covered a significant percentage of the land mass in the Northern hemisphere - at the very least - and conclude that their dissapearance was probably due to something other than the Clovis people's wasteful and self-indulgent lifestyle.

 

I personally don't think that people who want to know how much of the observed warming is due to increased C02 concentration due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and how much is due to natural cycles that we simply have no control over before taking drastic action are behaving irrationally at all.

 

Even once this information is known it would probably be a good idea to attempt to calculate the costs and the efficacy of making the changes required for maximal reductions in C02 emissions versus the benefits. If a massive cut in CO2 emissions will result in, at best, a net difference of 1 degree farenheit - but the costs would drive global economic growth below the levels of population growth - then the tradeoff might not be worth it - as the resultant poverty could very well lead to quite a bit more misery and environmental damage than the climate change itself would produce.

 

You and j_b ditched the cars and moved into the solar powered yurts yet?

 

Excellent! Well-stated!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

whatever people do 'fucks' up the environment in some way, no matter how good some sort of energy is versus another. Dams heat the water, kill fish, and prevent flooding. Nuclear plants are cool, but also heat up water, kill fish, and might blow up. Coal power plants spew shit into the air, but coal is cheap. Humans will go extinct one day just like the dinosaurs, and by using up earth's resources quicker, we are just speeding up our demise.

 

In the 70's all we heard about was the doom-and-gloom scenarios of the oncoming, inevitable ice-age and the overpopulation crisis that would destroy the earth. It seems there's never a shortage of doomsday prophets wringing their hands about our ultimate demise.

[j_b]

In the 70's all we heard about was the doom-and-gloom scenarios of the oncoming, inevitable ice-age [...] that would destroy the earth. It seems there's never a shortage of doomsday prophets wringing their hands about our ultimate demise.

 

well, unfortunately for you there is someone keeping track of the lies about scientists predicting an imminent ice-age in the 70's: Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No

 

moral: one shouldn't regurgitate what they hear on talk radio wihtout checking facts first.

[TBay]

New climate change data

 

Momentarily ignoring the political pressure on scientists to justify the existence of global warming, I don't think it matters whether our Earth warmed (or cooled!) between 1979-1995. Let's say we're in a warming trend. Does that mean the trend will continue without end?

 

Sometimes the Earth warms. Sometimes it cools. Climate changes. It's a fact. Trying to predict Earth's temperature during the next century, based on what may have happened during an arbitrary time period in the past, is simply...absurd. Climate cycles are thousands of years in duration. How much can be predicted from a 16-year window?

 

Putting stock in the sort of trend analysis used by global warming advocates is a proven loser. Just look at the commodity futures market, a system that is a lot less complex than the global climate system.

 

Trend analysis (or "charting" as it is known among commodity futures traders) is a popular gimmick used to decide when to buy and sell futures contracts. But for every trader who makes money through charting, there are many more who lose money. Why? Because trends start and end unpredictably. And you don't always know whether you're at the beginning, the middle or the end of a trend.

 

Keep in mind, despite all our advanced technology, Harry Whoppler and the "Smart" Atmospheric Scientists gang still have trouble predicting TOMMORROWS weather. Why would anyone imagine we could predict the weather 50 years from now?

 

If we're going to rely on trend analysis in the global warming debate, let's have the climatologists first prove they can successfully analyze simpler systems. For starters, what's going to happen in the bellies market?

[JayB]

Speaking of Doomsday prophets from the dwindling twilight of your glory days - how many of your boy Ehrlic's predictions came true? You are surely old enough to recall the publication of "The Population Bomb," the bet with his nemisis Julian Simons, and the outcome of the said bet.

 

BTW - how'd you get broadband in the yurt? And how many revolutions of the hand-crank generator are necessary for you to peruse the internet for 1/2 hour?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

moral: one shouldn't regurgitate what they hear on talk radio wihtout checking facts first.

 

I heard it/read it in mainstream media - all before talk radio was even popular.

 

 

the hand-wringing about the "imminent ice-age" in the 70's is very similar to hand-wringing by NON SCIENTISTS today - most notably the enviro-nuts. Most of what we hear about global warming - the dire predictions and feel-good-meaningless-gesture solutions come from NON SCIENTISTS based on FEELING (a liberal fall-back) not data.

 

And I duly note your silence on the "over-population hysteria".

[j_b]

boy, i seem to have a knack for getting the laissez-faire zealots all riled up

 

 

Trying to predict Earth's temperature during the next century, based on what may have happened during an arbitrary time period in the past, is simply...absurd.

 

the dude should take earth/natural science 101 if he wants to discuss natural systems. "the present is the key to the past" and "the present is the key to the future" were only coined ~200years ago.

 

Climate cycles are thousands of years in duration. How much can be predicted from a 16-year window?

 

err .... we have 150+ year of historical data, and several 100,000 years worth of paleoclimatic data.

 

Putting stock in the sort of trend analysis used by global warming advocates is a proven loser. Just look at the commodity futures market, a system that is a lot less complex than the global climate system.

 

sure, let's compare the lottery with the physical sciences. it's all a matter of opinion, ain't it ...

 

what are physical laws good for? it's a wonder the guy manages to successfully turn on the engine to go to work in the morning ... it's truly a miracle. "do you think the engine will start today?"

 

 

Keep in mind, despite all our, Harry Whoppler and the "Smart" Atmospheric Scientists gang still have trouble predicting TOMMORROWS weather. Why would anyone imagine we could predict the weather 50 years from now?

 

classic demagoguery. predicting climate isn't the same as predicting weather. it's difficult to forecast tomorrow's temperature yet it's not so difficult to say that we'll have summer like temperature over july/august. scientists can tell us the amplitude and cycle of the tides yet they can't tell us what will be the amplitude of the next sea wave hitting the shore at shillshole bay! the time and spatial scales are very different and require a very different knowledge of initial and boundary conditions.

 

i like it when hacks pretend to discuss science ...