74
   

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

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 07:51 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
And he most likely didn't write the headline that you quoted.


You say so (or similar) the second time now.

The report is written by him - at least that's what the numerous copies in various online and print media say.

Why is it "most likely" that a report, an article with his name gets a headline he didn't write?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 07:57 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Very very few writers write the headlines for the articles that appear in various publications. If you check syndicated columns that appear in various newspapers or magazines, you will usually find different headlines for the same column. As a reporter, I put a generic title on the stories I submitted, and the editor came up with the published headline for them--the only time the editor used my suggested headline was if he really liked it and it fit the space. As an editor, I rarely used the generic title on pieces others submitted, but I wrote the headlines for them.

So that is why I think it is probably unlikely that Dr. Ball wrote the headline for that piece.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 08:08 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
humans should be good stewards and take good care of the Earth,


If the earth's 7 billion population had the privilege of consuming at his rate where would we be? He's a bullshitter. And a racist.
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 08:14 am
@Foxfyre,
Actually, you said at first, quote It was in fact the headline some editor put on a Tim Ball essay. end of quote, then quote "he most likely didn't ..." end of quote.

Your now "probably unlikely" sounds a bit different.
But still, whatever one might think about Ball, I don't suppose that articles under his name published without him having given his placet for them.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 08:19 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Well I'm sorry, but I don't have time to run all my syntax by you for your approval before I post something Walter. So you'll just have to continue to be irritated I guess.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 08:22 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
humans should be good stewards and take good care of the Earth,


If the earth's 7 billion population had the privilege of consuming at his rate where would we be? He's a bullshitter. And a racist.


Fine Spendi. Whatever you think. (Who knows what you think?) I tend to be more pragmatic about these things and take people at what I believe they most likely intend. But since I also believe I should be a good steward of the Earth, I suppose in your eyes I am a bullshitter and racist too. But do have a good day.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 10:35 am
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
292
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Fred Michel, Director of the Institute of Environmental Science and Associate Professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Canada, rejected global warming fears. "Climate hysteria has been known to be a sham all along," Michel told EPW on May 16, 2007. "As someone who has worked in the arctic on topics such as permafrost, groundwater, and Quaternary glacial history, it has always been quite clear that the climate is constantly changing and that natural processes are able to produce very large changes over very short time periods," wrote Michel, who has worked with the International Energy Agency. We need "to return our focus to the important issues that need to be addressed, which includes being aware of the effects of a changing climate whether it be warmer or colder," he added. (LINK)

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 10:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Certainly. And if I find the time to do so, I'll quote exactly how you like it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 12:26 pm
@ican711nm,
650 climate skeptics?


Sceintific Inquiry concludes Inhofe's list Not Credible
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 01:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Fine Spendi. Whatever you think. (Who knows what you think?) I tend to be more pragmatic about these things and take people at what I believe they most likely intend.


Well, as a good American republican, I thought you would understand my hint that what he intends first and foremost is the promotion of his career and his name up in lights as a stout upholder of scientific piety as approved by those who sign the biggest cheques. You would look a bit silly saying that the dollar rules the world and thinking it doesn't rule you. I understand Americans goodstyle. I've been reading about them ever since my Auntie Phylis, who wasn't my real auntie, bought me a subscription to Readers Digest when I was about 12. She was of an age which could have brought her into contact with an American base near here. My mother was a PO Box for her. I asked my mother once why Auntie Phylis's letters came to our house when she had a house of her own. She ruffled my curls devilishly and told me not to bother my head about it so, as I always did what she said, I examined one of these envelopes, they were placed behind the clock on the mantlepiece over the fire besides which Auntie Phylis would often sit reading the paper with her legs ajar with me opposite studying a map of the US, Births, Marriages & Deaths mostly, and it had an American stamp on it. They came once a month and after a while tailed off and then faded out altogether like I had better fade this sordid tale out.

It was the famous fireplace which warmed Auntie Phylis's hinderparts when she had just come in from the cold and once my mother had said to her "mind you don't burn your ration book" with what I now know to be a cynical feminine leer. It struck me as a strange thing to say but I thought no more about it.

What I mean, Foxy, is that his spiel gave me the impression that he could just have easily been on the other side had he thought it offered a more glittering career in a nation that pumps it out without a thought for saving the earth or even for preserving the habitat of the greater titted warbler were this species of tree-hopper to become endangered. There was no enthusiasm in the piece, I felt, for disentangling us from this fine mess we have got ourselves in. It seemed to be saying "carry on folks--we don't want the DOW at 2 now do we? Which is mindless enough in my book. The technique was the bullshit.

I don't know if you are a bullshitter and a racist. I don't know how you live. But if you are an average American you are likely to be and if you are above average you are likely to be an above average bullshitter and racist. One only need compare the per capita consumption of fossil fuels in the USA to that of Chad and the stark fact stares you in the face. farmerman, for example, has three different cookers. At least. Three I know of. One in his house, one on his boat and one in his garden when he wants to griddle some shrink-wrapped brisket ceremonially. In Chad they have no matches. And he is a socialist.

And hasn't the wit to know that he ought to light his BBQ by rubbing two sticks together if he is to conduct fire magic customs properly.

It's a bit one sided for those with a deep love for their fellow man don't you think? And your news footage rather rubs it in to the face of the rest of the world. Even the camera work in some makes us gasp with astonishment. Who else could film a dead body being conveyed from the jurisdiction of one set of freeloaders to another with such style. The hearse did look like it was heading for heaven at the next set of lights. It seemed to float down a deep-purple carpet in an orange glow of technological wizardy doing a real time version of slow motion. With flashes of lightning each time one of the many shiny surfaces on the cortege brought a street light into reflective conjuction with the cameras. The Pharoes would have had that but they would be being conveyed into the jurisdiction of the hereafter. I imagine Mr Jackson had imagined his hereafter and set things in motion which he thought might be entertaining in the event, which many think unlikely, of him being able to witness the spectacle. Of, say, thousands of people wrassling over an intractable problem of his design. The more powerful the ship the more turbulent the wake.

It's Americans goody-goodying that makes me laugh. And Europeans. A "concerned Westerner" is an oxymoron.

Check out Malthus and for "food" read "energy". Energy from the underground store of fossils going whoosh over an unimaginably short period of time using the Darwinian calender. It could look like a puff of smoke.

We will have to live without our ration of daily sunlight at some point and if it takes some scare stories about the sea flooding the coastal cities to get the funding for how to do it then who is to say whether they are justified or not.

And those with the best information, governments, are definitely moving in the direction of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Think of the "leverage" fossil fuels have provided. Think of leverage. Its joys and sorrows.

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:02 pm
Congratulations, Fox, you set spendius off. Now we'll never have peace to argue amongst ourselves again.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:09 pm
@MontereyJack,
It would seem so. Smile

I actually love Spendi, but I'm just going to disagree with him on this one. I have found absolutely no reason to question Dr. Ball's motives....or Dr. Ross's for that matter....and take interest in the fact that they can disagree with each other and still arrive at the same conclusion of what the government's role should be in all of this. I guess I just want to believe that there are people who have strength of conviction without some additional motive or hidden agenda.

I will give Spendi props for making a hell of an argument there though.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 02:26 pm
@Foxfyre,
I watch re-runs of Sgt. Bilko from time to time. He went through similar socialisation processes as your Drs did.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:06 pm
@parados,
Quote:

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/650Skeptics.HTM
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutability is one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover, I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determine whether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games. Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all you have to do is commit to a criterion for testing. It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-minded enough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?

You can show me my beliefs regarding the cause(s) of global warming wrong by presenting me evidence of a strong correlation between annual CO2 emissions over the last 100 years and annual average global temperatures over the same period.[/quote]

Parados, what evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

Quote:

http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/07/17/scientific-inquiry-concludes-inhofe-list-not-credible/
CFI’s Office of Public Policy undertook an assessment of the 687 people listed as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the ‘Inhofe list’. Their conclusions:

Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

...

“Sen. Inhofe and others have had some success in conveying to the media the impression that the number of scientists skeptical about man-made global warming is swelling, yet this is demonstrably not true.” Dr. Ronald Lindsay, CFI’s CEO, points out that Inhofe’s office had misleadingly claimed in a press release that the number of dissenting scientists outnumbered by more than 13 times the number of U.N. scientists (52) who authored the 2007 IPCC. “But those 52 U.N. scientists were in fact summarizing for policymakers the work of over 2,000 active research scientists, all with substantially similar views on global warming and its causes. This is the kind of broadside against sound science and scientific integrity that we at CFI deplore.”

What is the evidence about how many of those over 2,000 active research scientists were themselves climate scientists?

For that matter, what is the evidence about how many of those U.N. scientists (52) who authored the 2007 IPCC were themselves climate scientists?



spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:26 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
You can show me my beliefs regarding the cause(s) of global warming wrong by presenting me evidence of a strong correlation between annual CO2 emissions over the last 100 years and annual average global temperatures over the same period.


And if he did only those who wanted to believe it would believe it and those who didn't want to believe it would come up with some other evidence to counteract it. And that's science. Both camps testing each other's hypothesis.

Billions of years of locked away energy suddenly released in a mere 200 years on top of the daily ration must be doing something I would think. A naive commonsense view which came about meditating on a car exhaust pipe in a traffic jam. The one in front. Not my own of course. Whether it is good or bad we will have to wait and see.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:37 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Parados, what evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?

#1 on the list would be getting basic facts correct.
#2 would be you need to account for all known scientific facts in your theory.


Let's examine your requirement for you to believe.
1. You require a direct correlation.
BUT....
You ignore all other data when you demand that correlation.

The science allows for all other data. Temperature will vary when other data varies. If the temperature various outside the other possible causes then there must be another cause. The most likely other cause is the increase in CO2. Science allows for changes in solar radiation. You don't in your theory.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 03:44 pm
What do you get when you impose a linear forcing on a non-linear system (i.e. one where the graph of the function over times show random peaks and valleys, ups and downs)? A rising function, with similar peaks and valleys, but with average value rising. Basic math. What do we get when we impose the linear forcing increasing CO2 on a non-linear function like average global temp. over time? A rising function with similar peaks and valleys, but with average value rising. Look at the graphs of temp. you keep posting, ican.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:59 am
@MontereyJack,
You get a long, protracted argument which is never resolved.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 09:41 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

What do you get when you impose a linear forcing on a non-linear system (i.e. one where the graph of the function over times show random peaks and valleys, ups and downs)? A rising function, with similar peaks and valleys, but with average value rising. Basic math. What do we get when we impose the linear forcing increasing CO2 on a non-linear function like average global temp. over time? A rising function with similar peaks and valleys, but with average value rising. Look at the graphs of temp. you keep posting, ican.

What do you get when you impose only one linear force into a non-linear system and omit other linear and non-linear forces that may exist? And what do you get when you impose a one linear force into a non-linear system when the mathematical and scientific basis for determining the linear force may be flawed or poorly established by flawed assumptions assumed in computer models?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 10:57 am
@okie,
You get assumptions that it will cost trillions and ruin the economy to reduce greenhouse gases.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/25/2025 at 09:01:40