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

@okie,

Quote:

I realize there is a slight difference in actually doing it themselves and agreement with the legality,

Don't you think okie that the former might be considered less reprehensible on the grounds that those doing it themselves might be temporarily emotionally disturbed whilst the latter is a considered position which encourages others to do it with fewer qualms.

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

Hi Kuvasz - good to see you again. Btw, Ionus is a fellow pilot, so give him benefit of doubt if you could. Next, I've a Q for you, and I understand your field is chemistry, but maybe you know about lack of sunspots (and related phenomena of our one and only star) having a cooling effect >

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/layers_med.jpg

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/pickoftheweek/
> and since you followed the IPCC report you also know they excluded ab initio all sun- and water- related effects (even they realized solar internal fusion isn't man-made, and neither is evaporation from 3/4 of our own planet's surface) in order to focus on what could conceivably be man-made.

If you exclude over 99% of inputs from a mathematical model, surely you see you end up with GIGO?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie said

Quote:

kuvasz, no, I am not insane, I am simply making a common sense observation.

How can you not be described as insane when your so called common sense observation you claim to have made about me is untrue?

It might be better for you to be wearing a big red nose and size 32 shoes when you post so people can put your posts in the proper context.

If you think that I am enamoured by feel-good-doer Liberals whose understanding on these topics rivals your own level of scientific sciolism. I am not.

A pretentious attitude of scholarship mixed with superficial knowledgeability is not the province of right wing reactionaries alone.

Part of the fault in this lies with the many followers of the environmental movement which is arrogant and ineffectual in getting out the word (as well as invested in failure). There is truth in all that. But while I concede that the messaging is obviously not resonant with global warming deniers or they would not be global warming deniers, I'm still not sure that anything would persuade them, because they are, like many of the liberal adversaries you excoriate, pyschologically prone to cultish group-think and gravitate to things that assauge the fear that they might be coward, and join movements pretending to believe nonsense simply so one can pretend to feel brave.

"Are you afraid that your life is meaningless?"

Join us in pretending to believe this lie and you can pretend your life has purpose.

"Are you afraid you're mired in mediocrity?"

Join us in pretending to believe this lie and you can pretend to feel exceptional.

"Are you worried that you won't be able to forget that you're just pretending and that all those good feelings will thus seem hollow and empty?"

Join us and we will pretend it's true for you if you will pretend it's true for us. We need each other.

So, Okie both sides, or let me define more properly, human emotional nature is evident in BOTH the pro and anti climate change believers. It is just that like in the past with physical science you don't discard a hypothesis until you can produce one that generates a closer approximation to observable facts and until the anti-climate change folks can produce a reasonable and factually verifible hypothesis to anthropogenic factors being the predominant factor, your position is intellectually untenable and based upon emotion, not reason.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Yeah, you gotta problem with laughing at my own jokes?

1 Reply

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 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
337
UK atmospheric scientist John Kettley, formerly of the Met Office and the Fluid Dynamics Department at the Bracknell headquarters, dismissed the linkage of wild weather in the summer of 2007 in England to global warming. "In my view, none of the severe weather we have experienced is proof of 'climate change.' It is just a poor summer - nothing more, nothing less - something that was the norm throughout most of the Sixties and has been repeated on several occasions more recently," Kettley, a former meteorologist with the BBC, wrote in an op-ed on July 22, 2007 titled "Global Warming? No, Just an Old-Style British Summer." "To many, the black skies and fierce rains must have seemed an ominous portent of things to come: symptomatic of the environmental ravages of global warming. But, however extreme the weather we have experienced over the past few days, its significance in meteorological terms is likely to be more prosaic. This year's apparently extraordinary weather is no more sinister than a typical British summer of old and a reminder of why Mediterranean holidays first became so attractive to us more than 40 years ago," Kettley wrote. "Going further back, history also shows that 1912 was an atrocious summer. It was so bad, in fact, that we are still some way short of the torrential downpours that happened that year. It seemed particularly bad at the time because 1911 had been such an exceptionally good summer. So, taking a long view, there is a pattern of warming and cooling. The Edwardians were experiencing a period of significant warming (much like now) following a cold Victorian spell. There was a period of warming from the Twenties through to the end of the Fifties and, after a cooler period, there has been a further significant warming over the past 20 years," he added. "In the final analysis, this summer may be just such a 'blip' in the charts," he concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Yeah, you gotta problem with laughing at my own jokes?

Now THAT'S funny ! Very Happy

0 Replies

I am afraid that the eminent Scientist Dr. Kuvasz is unable to respond to my post.
He responded thusly:

report Wed 9 Dec, 2009 03:48 pm @MASSAGAT,
massagetto, bernardo, genoves or whomever your mind believes you are this week, you write with such transparency that you look like a fool trying to get back on site with your insane posts. You and I had discussions on the report over two years ago and you ought to stop wasting my time to reiterate what I said then.

Get back on your medication, your sanity is once again slipping

0 Replies

It is obvious that Dr. Kuvasz is unable to respond to some fairly easy questions.

He purports to defend the IPCC's finding but cannot do so. If my post contained errors, he should prove they are errors and thus disqualify my statement.

Alas, he cannot do so and hides behind a flurry of "ad Hominems".

Dr. Kuvasz did not respond to my questions:

again---

Wed 9 Dec, 2009 01:42 pm Kuvacsz( the esteemed Scientist) thinks that we( the poor scientifically illiterate peons who are not worthy of sitting anywhere near his genius) cannot and have not read the findings of the IPCC. I have and have never had a response from Scientific Illuminati like Kuvasz.

Questions-Dr. Kuvasz-

Is it true that, according to the IPCC's 2007 Report( we do read them),sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century?

Is it true, oh omniscient one, that since 1860, we have experience a sea level rise of about a foot. without major disruptions?

Is it true, oh wise one, that in April 2000, the text of the IPCC was supposed to read--"There has been a discernable human influence on global climate" but then the October draft stated: "it is likely that increasing concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed substantially over the last 50 years but THEN, in the official summary( read by most reporters who were too lazy to go to the original data)-"MOST of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

How can we be sure? If we are skeptical, we can and should examine the original data used to come to these conclusions. BUT THIS DATA HAS BEEN DUMPED.

I am sure that you cannot give a rationale for such a egregious act!!

0 Replies

Is there anyone--anyone who will take issue with the fact that the median model report from the IPCC showed that the sea level would rise about a foot in the next century and that the sea level has risen a foot since 1860.

Is there anyone-anyone who will show that my quotes TAKEN FROM THE IPCC in my last post are not completely accurate?

Is there anyone-anyone who holds that the East Anglia Climate Research Unit has not ADMITTED that it dumped the ORIGINAL RAW CLIMATE DATA used to bolster the case while retaining only the "value added"--read "massaged" data?

Dr. Kuvasz either cannot or will not do so, despite his claims of advanced degrees and scholarship.

Cicerone Imposter is clearly unable to participate and can only sputter some idiocy about religion.

Ican( as usual) and Okie continue to make sense on the topic of Global Warming or, as some would have it, Climate Change.

The press calls the furor at East Anglia "climategate". I am sure that the Copenhagen Summit will convene with a great many pious statements BUT NO REAL HARD AND FAST AGREEMENTS.

President Obama obviously put his money on three horses to win, place and show--Health Reform; Climate Tinkering; and, to a lesser degree, Education Reform.

He has lost on all three and is now below 50% in his Job Approval Rating.

Poor Barack--The people of Illinois had such aspirations for him!!!

0 Replies

Dr. Kuvasz wrote:

So, Okie both sides, or let me define more properly, human emotional nature is evident in BOTH the pro and anti climate change believers. It is just that like in the past with physical science you don't discard a hypothesis until you can produce one that generates a closer approximation to observable facts and until the anti-climate change folks can produce a reasonable and factually verifible hypothesis to anthropogenic factors being the predominant factor, your position is intellectually untenable and based upon emotion, not reason.

**********************************************************************

Do you have a Doctorate in Psychology too, Dr. Kuvasz?

What do you mean "human emotional nature is evident in BOTH the pro and anti climate change believers"--Human emotional nature is evident in almost every action we take!!!

Dr. Kuvasz writes:

You don't discard a hypothesis until you can produce one that generates a closer approximation to observable facts AND UNTIL THE ANTI-CLIMATE FOLKS CAN PRODUC E A REASONABLE AND FACTUALLY VERIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS TO ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS BEING THE PREDOMINANT FACTOR, your position is intellectually untenable and based upon emotion and not reason.
*************** end of Dr, Kuvasz quote-

OH MY-where to begin!!!

Incredible sloppiness in thinking and writing.

l. Of course, you do not discard a hypothesis--a hypothesis is not necessarily a fact.

2. Dr. Kuvasz states, without giving proof, that the "PRO-WARMING" hypothesis generates a "closer" approximation to "observable" facts, the hypothesis cannot be discarded.

True, but the hypothesis has not been proven to be factual.

I am sure that Dr. Kuvasz is aware that the models fed by the IPCC are given data SELECTED by the scientists. All well and good. But the facts adduced cannot be said to be "observable" facts since it is clear that some scientists are cherry picking the data.

One of them at the CRU note-quote"Where the heck is global warming"?
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't( misleading hypothesis maybe?)

Well, the highly moral and professional scientists at the CRU decide--
Let's use a trick to hide the decline in temperatures-Use TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF DATA--TEMPERATURE PROXIES FROM TREE RINGS AND ACTUAL THERMOMETER MEASURMENTS IN A WAY TO PRODUCE A GRAPH OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES THAT ENDS THE WAY THE GLOBAL ESTABLISHMENT WANTS IT TO.

In Science( and I know the esteemed Dr. Kuvasz knows this), you have to report your data and your specific method of analysis so that others can check it. But how can that be done when the original "raw data" was dumped?

*****************************
However, I must leave my most trenchant critique of Dr. Kuvasz screed for last.

I urge anyone reading this to go to the paragraph in which Dr. Kuvasz states that Okie is basing his stand on emotion UNTIL THE ANTI-CLIMATE FOLKS WILL PRODUCE A REASONABLE AND FACTUALLY VERIFABLE HYPOTHESIS TO ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS BEING THE PREDOMINANT FACTOR.

First-Not at a likely that the "Anti-Climate" folks will produce a hypothesis that says that antropogenic factors are the PREDOMINANT factor IF such a factor is based solely on the emission of Co2. That is still only a hypothesis-unproven and now laden with clear evidence of unprofessional conduct by the "global warming " crowd at the CRU.

Second( and I do wish that Dr. Kuvasz would re-read his sloppy sentences.

He says--Anthropogenic FACTORS (factors-plural) being the predominant FACTOR(factor)- singular. How FACTORS can become a FACTOR is beyond me. Perhaps in Dr. Kuvasz's universe such a think is possible.

Nevertheless- it is sloppy writing!

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
I realize there is a slight difference in actually doing it themselves and agreement with the legality,

Don't you think okie that the former might be considered less reprehensible on the grounds that those doing it themselves might be temporarily emotionally disturbed whilst the latter is a considered position which encourages others to do it with fewer qualms.

Interesting point. I suppose that could be the case some of the time. What I think is really reprehensible are those people that counsel young women to abort their unborn, sometimes for financial gain which makes it even more reprehensible, but when young women are not counseled with information that such a choice can commonly lead to very serious emotional effects and feeling of guilt for the rest of their entire lives, that is really terrible.

The primary point that I was trying to bring out is the fact that many people use the argument that they themselves consider abortion wrong, but they do not wish to make that choice for other people, they feel that it is a personal choice. In fact, I think John Kerry used that position during his presidential run. The fallacy of that reasoning that I am pointing out here is that the primary reason why even liberals do not advocate abortion for themselves or would choose it for themselves is the very fact that they would consider it the taking of an innocent life. In fact, the relious persuasion of John Kerry is Catholocism, which would in fact consider it the taking of an innocent life. But here is the problem with that, that reason is the similar reason that we have laws in this country against murder, and most people would consider it to be our civic duty to promote and support laws which protect life and liberty of other people. That is in fact the very basis of most of our laws, to protect us from each other in terms of protecting lives and the rights that those lives should hold. So we already make moral choices for other people, for all of society, based upon what we consider to be sacred, which is life and liberty of members of our society, including the very weakest among us.

So it appears to me that refusing to make a moral choice for all of society in the case of protecting life of the weakest among us is really a failure to face up to the reality of life and our moral beliefs. Now, maybe to take a pragmatic approach, we would find it very difficult to outlaw abortion of a barely fertilized life, but certainly it appears to me that the failure to outlaw partial birth abortion and those infants that have reached the stage that they can very likely survive outside the womb, I think that would be appropriate, not only good for that person to be born, but also for the mother, and for society. It would be the only correct and compassionate stand to take, to stand up for life. If it should be a case of saving the life of the baby or the mother, which by the way such a choice very rarely if ever happens to be necessary, then that issue could be dealt with in a reasonable manner.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas--You are, of course, correct. Any deletion of effects of the Sun on the temperature of the earth is ridiculous--Baliunas and Soon( both respected scientists) have shown in their combined Solar Irradiance Model as related to earth surface temperatures, that there is a close correlation between solar irradiance and the Earth's climate.

But Dr. Kuvasz will never accept such a HYPOTHESIS. He only likes the hypothesis presented by the liars and fact manipulators at the East Anglia headquarters of the IPCC.

0 Replies

I don't know about others, but where I have been the last few days, it has been close to zero, actually almost 20 below zero one night. I have a hard time believing that Arctic ice is going to disappear anytime this year, given the frigid temperatures here which is a long way from the Arctic Circle, and it has to be colder there than here.

By the way, my apologies for bringing in the subject of abortion, but when something was posted here trying to make the claim that liberal global warmers are doing what they are doing because they care about saving lives, I had to respond with the point that liberals are obviously not on the global warming bandwagon for that reason, otherwise they would be alot more engaged into saving the lives of some of the weakest among us, and I cited the example of the unborn. Liberals love to justify their issues, with things like "do it for the children," care for the elderly, and all of that stuff, but obviously those are only artificial wedge slogans to try to play on peoples emotions, but they obviously are not due to actual compassion.

Carry on.

0 Replies

Okie- Liberals are hypocrites and are only truly interested in the agenda of making the USA into a Socialist country( because of their twisted need to punish their own country--perhaps stemming from self-hatred).

They claim to be humanistic and in favor of helping others. Note the following paragraph from the fine book by Bjorn Lomborg--"Cool It"

P. 100

",,, we can cut malaria incidence to about half for about 3 Billion annually or 3 percent the cost of Kyoto. This was the fourth priority of in the Copenhagen Consensus. Because we can do this within a decade, whereas climate policy will take a half century or more, the difference in actual people helped is even more dramtic, Till 2085, Kyoto will keep about seventy million people from getting infected by malaria( about 0.1 percent of all malaria infections) In comparison, a simple and cheap halving of malaria incidence by 2015 will keep more than twenty-eight billion people from suffering. THIS POLICY WILL DO ABOUT FOUR HUNDRED TIMES MORE GOOD AT ONE FIFTIETH OF THE COST"

end of quote

But those black people in Africa aren't apparently as important to the left wing elitists. They are more worried that their ocean front properties will have to deal with a rise of a foot along the shore. This, of course, is the
terrible consequence of "global warming" caused by "co2" according to the liars at East Anglia who are in the IPCC.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Note my challenge to him, Ionus. He won't answer it. He can't without losing face and he is too insecure to handle that!

0 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

But those black people in Africa aren't apparently as important to the left wing elitists. They are more worried that their ocean front properties will have to deal with a rise of a foot along the shore. This, of course, is the
terrible consequence of "global warming" caused by "co2" according to the liars at East Anglia who are in the IPCC.

And after observing where some of the rich people build their stupid ocean front properties, I have to question their intelligence even more. I visited the panhandle of Florida a few years ago, and some were built between the edge of the water and the first row of sand hills or dunes, and looking at how they were built like a bunch of matchsticks nailed together, the first strong wind from a hurricane would literally blow them a few hundred yards into the trees on shore. Even my grandpa that homesteaded a piece of land in Oklahoma had enough sense to build his sodhouse on a hill out of the creek floodplain.

And to top it all off, people that inhabit floodplains near sea level apparently expect the country to pay them for their poor planning and ill advised activities that do not utilize common sense, witness New Orleans.

It is my opinion that if we used common sense in our building of harbors and ocean front, that a few inches or one foot should have minimal effect upon things there. Besides, their dire predictions of rising ocean have so far been proven to be fraudulant and just wrong.

0 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

But those black people in Africa aren't apparently as important to the left wing elitists. They are more worried that their ocean front properties will have to deal with a rise of a foot along the shore. This, of course, is the
terrible consequence of "global warming" caused by "co2" according to the liars at East Anglia who are in the IPCC.

Well that's why the conservative heads of the EU (which you would call liberals), the conservative EU-member-state's governments (which you would call liberal as well) and the social-democratic governments (which are communists in your opinion) offer more than 7.2 billion € to help developing countries deal with the effects of climate change over the next three years ...

3 Replies

US negotiation position in Copenhagen--

1. Average carbon consumption of 301 million citizens is 19 tons per person.

2. Average electricity consumption of 1,000 Kw/ month.

3. Average meat consumption is 80 kg requiring 10 billion animals to be slaughtered.

4. No of passenger vehicles is 250 million.

5. US is 4% of world population and using 25% of world's energy supply.

I might add that ossobuco has admitted having an electric pencil sharpener and an electric eraser.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well that's why the conservative heads of the EU [...] offer more than 7.2 billion € to help developing countries deal with the effects of climate change over the next three years ...

Now you see the wisdom of the US, Walter, instead of paying all those pesky teeny weeny nations >

Quote:

....Tuvalu's gambit, seconded by Grenada, the Solomons and other island states one by one on the floor of the cavernous Bella Center, quickly ran into stiff opposition from oil giant Saudi Arabia, which would be hurt by sharp rollbacks in fuel use, and from China and India. The U.S. delegation remained silent.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121255551
> we just go ahead and invade them: Grenada was already invaded under President Reagan, now looks like Tuvalu is next in line - if anyone can locate that tiny little Pacific dot on a map, that is..... Smile

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Well that's why the conservative heads of the EU (which you would call liberals), the conservative EU-member-state's governments (which you would call liberal as well) and the social-democratic governments (which are communists in your opinion) offer more than 7.2 billion € to help developing countries deal with the effects of climate change over the next three years ...

With 27 countries and 500,000,000 people that comes to about £14 each which is eff-all at this season of glad tidings and festive goodwill and, what is more, the £7 billion will be spent on things for which our industries have expertise in and thus most of it will return home. And it's spread out over a hardly to be noticed three years and is thus but a miserly £5 per annum.

Of course I am not unaware of the benefits of cleansing the consciences of the liberals so that they don't feel so bad about their self indulgent ways such as flying around the globe on the merest whim and waking everybody up who is unfortunate enough to live anywhere near the landing and take-off points or those who experience a frozen turd clattering on the roof tiles.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know