Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@parados,

I'm not going to argue the point with you Parados. Do you think the auto industry is healthy right now? Can you say with any authority that government mandates have not contributed to at least some of the problems of the auto industry?

I get my information on biofuels from what I have read and also a family member who helps design and build the plants that make them and is heavily involved in the production end of refining them. Believe me, he knows exactly how much energy it takes to make them, how much energy is produced by them, and the cost involved in each.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You seem to contradict yourself hawkeye...

Is an educated guess better than common sense? How would you define "common sense"? Doesn't it require some knowledge just like an educated guess does?

not contradicted, thus is the bias of a mystic. As a mystic I will follow gut feeling over rational best guesses every time. I will argue that this is the right thing to do with full knowledge that others (most?) do not agree with me.

What does appear to be a contradiction is that a few post ago I argue that we should argue evidence, and then later I argue that the evidence provided so far by the scientists is irrelevant re lowering energy usage. In fact the first post was talking about flaws in process, and the second was talking about the quality (usability) of a particular set of evidence.

0 Replies

@parados,

Go ahead parados and hold your breathe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

In any case the tmepertatue data is all over the place let along the models and therefore worthless for predictions.

Oh for the history of computer models and the nonsense they can come up with google the Club of Rome computer models dealing with resources we was predicted to run out of by now.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I still say that increased prosperity encourages people to do more of the right thing because they have the time, energy, and ability to do so.

America is the richest most powerful nation that has ever existed, but I don't see many individuals who have the time, energy, ability or inclination to do the right thing when it comes to promoting the best interests of the collective. Prosperity corrupts almost in the same manor that power does. Your entire world view is based upon a false premise, demonstrative reality is vastly different than your theory says that it will be.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I agree that America is the most prosperous nation on Earth, or at least it used to be, but I disagree that this is a bad thing. But then again I am a small government, free market person who believes in the laizze-faire benefits to society of people simply living their lives as described by Adam Smith et al. I think the collective effort occurs naturally and often without intentional effort.

However, in my lifetime I have seen the people collectively demand that rivers, lakes, toxic dumps, and noxious emissions be cleaned up and they were. The air is cleaner, the water safer, and the aesthetic beauties of the land are demanded, accomplished, and produced. If the people were not collectively willing for that to happen it never would have happened. And for the most part it wasn't the poor people, far more focused on other things, that made it happen. It was the more affluent people who demanded a better environment to live in.

I don't see people simply living their lives as the destructive force that you seem to imply.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

You didn't even read the stuff did you.

That's funny coming from you Fox..
Did you read the articles? I figure you must have since you asked TKO about reading them. Could you summarize the difference between McLeans first and 4th article on the list?
Could you tell us which articles reference other articles on the list?
Could you point out the articles that are nothing more than published press releases about other articles on the list?

Could you tell us why Milloy's survey was flawed and can't be related to the scientists as a whole?

For you to attack someone for not reading the 50 articles is rather disingenuous of your Fox. If you had read them you would see that the majority of them use 3 authors as their basis.

For that matter Fox. Could you tell us why the article that states -

Quote:

This means that Kiehl and Trenberth have assumed that the earth has a constant temperature
of 288K (15ºC).
Such an assumption is absurd

doesn't change your mind about the validity of ican's argument that the average global temperature is 288K. Shouldn't it be absurd when ican argues that if it is absurd when the IPCC argues that?

1 Reply

@parados,

Oh I hate to tell you also but the data on sea level changes are not in good agreement also. Of course name calling when someone bring you informtion you do not care for is the way to go<LOL>.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wZwBh_gaeGUC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=length+of+day+sea+levels&source=bl&ots=8LXv5RS4HI&sig=Bp1WKqlnrXqV23g-umPed2PSu7s&hl=en&ei=Spr8SaXfAtiLtgf7zvmiDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA39,M1

1 Reply

@parados,

I was not arguing the validity or non validity of any of the articles. I was arguing that there are many people who don't accept the IPPC report as gospel and who provide arguments for why it should not be. They also argue that the consensus claimed by those who do use the IPPC report as their Bible simply does not exist.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm not going to argue the point with you Parados. Do you think the auto industry is healthy right now? Can you say with any authority that government mandates have not contributed to at least some of the problems of the auto industry?

Do you think the auto industry collapsed when Cafe standards were introduced? Do you have evidence to support any allegation that the auto industry has been in recession for the last 30 years? The health of the auto industry doesn't show that the economy was hurt by fuel standards anymore than the health of buggy whip makers proves the economy was harmed by the reduced use of buggies.

Quote:

I get my information on biofuels from what I have read and also a family member who helps design and build the plants that make them and is heavily involved in the production end of refining them. Believe me, he knows exactly how much energy it takes to make them, how much energy is produced by them, and the cost involved in each.

Perhaps you could post that information then. I would love to see it.
"I know but I don't have to support what I know" is NOT a valid argument Fox.

1 Reply

@parados,

Whatever Parados. When you won't read and accurately repeat what I said, I doubt anything else I would say would make any difference. But then you've shown little interest in discussing the subject but rather just seem to want to discredit other members. Take a cue from Hawkeye. He is able to agree or disagree and provide his own thoughts on the subject without insulting anybody. I appreciate that a lot.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Go ahead parados and hold your breathe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

In any case the tmepertatue data is all over the place let along the models and therefore worthless for predictions.

Oh for the history of computer models and the nonsense they can come up with google the Club of Rome computer models dealing with resources we was predicted to run out of by now.

parados wrote:

Define what you think is a "fairly large margin?"

If you think the data is wrong, then provide corrected data. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to do that.

I don't see a definition of "fairly large margin" in the wiki page.

I don't see any data that contradicts the satellite measurements on that page.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I guess you don't understand the difference between name calling and examples of false logic. I used the false logic to highlight how the argument is false.

You are not an ignoramous simply because I state you are.
The temperature readings are not off by a fairly large margin simply because you state they are. Both require some evidence. A link to wiki that doesn't support your statement is NOT evidence.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Many People? ROFLMAO..
50 articles does NOT mean 50 people Fox.
I counted only a little over 12 people in the list that were not either direct authors or the source of quotes in other articles.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

It the Club of Rome nonsense all over. We needed to cut back on our society used of raw material because we are going to shortly run out of them.

You know in the 1970s we all did not have our own computers setting in front of us so it is more understadable that computer models predictions should be taken more at face value.

Computer models can be fun to play with and I have a 500 level course once on creating such models dealing with economic systems however I see little reason to turn our society upside down because of the current climate models.

1 Reply

@parados,

A fifty percent disagreement is fine with you?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You didn't even read the stuff did you.

I read a few. Same outcome though, that I already addressed: Promote controversy.

Have you read ALL of the IPCC report? I'm about 2/3rds the way through it. It's a very long read. From what I have read, it's very detailed. Much more detailed than what your articles say it is. But the point of those articles isn't to really offer much to consider just to provide an alternative. It is easier to read a little essay about how big and bad the IPCC report is. It's another thing to actually read the report.

Foxfyre wrote:

What I mean by 'gospel' is that you accept the IPCC report without question or at least assume it is correct enough to be the Bible for global warming.

Aside from your comical continued use of religious terms, no. I fully expect more and more data to be included in future reports. I do think it has enough information to show convergence on a real scientific theory where humans do have an effect on the earth's climate system. That is certainly enough to be appropriate for policy makers to have as a tool when making decisions.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't share that point of view.

Nor do I expect you to ever. You are not capable of being wrong, humble, or in the face of facts: honest.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Whatever Fox.

Why don't you say you'll pray for me in that snarky tone again.

Since this started with what I said about CAFE standards Fox. Maybe you should accurately repeat what I said before you start accusing me of not being accurate.

Simply claiming you know someone in an industry is NOT evidence to support your opinion. It is hogwash. But then you seem to know a lot about that. You do it all the time. And then us meanies don't believe you just because you say so. I would appreciate it if you would actually discuss a subject with facts and then not get all uptight when your opinions are not agreed with. Not agreeing with you is NOT being mean to you. Asking for evidence is NOT being mean to you.

Since you think I didn't accurately repeat what you said, please point out what you said and where I got it wrong. I look forward to your ability to point that out without insulting anybody.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

a 50% disagreement? Really? Which models are you referring to? Could you provide an actual reference?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I was not arguing the validity or non validity of any of the articles.

Don't post things you aren't willing/able to defend.

Foxfyre wrote:

I was arguing that there are many people who don't accept the IPPC report as gospel and who provide arguments for why it should not be.

Sure, those people exist. Unless you believe them credible and are willing to argue for them, don't post their articles here. It's intellectual cowardice. You post a bunch of stuff you don't care if it's credible or not. The opposition is asked to read through it all and retort. You never ante up and make this your argument. This is how you prevent yourself from ever being wrong: By never being a part of the discussion. When you are, and you're busted, you just whine about how nobody understands your point, when clearly they did.

Foxfyre wrote:

They also argue that the consensus claimed by those who do use the IPPC report as their Bible simply does not exist.

And maybe if you read the report, you'd understand how the IPCC addresses topics with varied amounts of certainty. More importantly, what will need to be done to be more certain.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

However, in my lifetime I have seen the people collectively demand that rivers, lakes, toxic dumps, and noxious emissions be cleaned up and they were. The air is cleaner, the water safer, and the aesthetic beauties of the land are demanded, accomplished, and produced. If the people were not collectively willing for that to happen it never would have happened. And for the most part it wasn't the poor people, far more focused on other things, that made it happen. It was the more affluent people who demanded a better environment to live in.

great so we move the factories to China so that they pollute China instead of the US, and then burn tons of energy to move stuff over the oceans....what a great idea. We have done nothing of value overall, just moved the dirt, but hay, we can feel good about ourselves.

And we mandate that we must pollute our view shed with wind turbines all over the country, so that we can spend more money for energy and reduce a tiny bit our exhaust, end then transmit the energy over long distances with lines that waste a chunk of the energy, cost us a lot of money, and further pollute our view shed....great idea!

And we spend billions of dollars a year removing dams that provide water and energy and wasting water behind dams so that rivers can run a few degrees colder so the a few more fish will be in them, wow, aren't we the smart ones

Spent a few billion on the Everglades to no effect

Spent a billion or so on the Chesapeake bay to bring back the clams to no effect

Let urban sprawl eat up our best farmland at a tremendous rate.

Fox, recent history is at best mixed on your theory that people will demand things that are good for them and their kids. A lot of this stuff looks all the world like a jobs program for the environmental lobby, where the end result either is not what was wanted or it comes at a huge expense that no one wants to talk about.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know