Page 88 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3878838485868788899091929398 ... LastLast
Results 1,741 to 1,760 of 2209
  1. #1741  
    Quote Originally Posted by kabamm View Post
    Micael - it's not a "little and we caused it" - it's a BIG "and we caused it", and we're making it worse - and soon it will be calamitous. Buh bye Bangladesh.

    There is unimpeachable evidence all around us.

    Just one piece here from NASA:

    NASA - Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change

    Rigorously studied and peer-reviewed:

    World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

    Solidly confirmed by the International Panel on Climate Change:

    Evidence For Human-caused Global Warming Is Now 'Unequivocal'

    For which the IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with
    - the devil himself to a lot of folks in this discussion -
    Al Gore: Peace 2007

    Al's an easy scapegoat, don't be so cowardly. If you want to argue, argue with this:

    EIA - Energy Emissions Data & Environmental Analysis of Energy Data

    and this:

    World Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1980-2001: Table of Contents
    It's not every scientist: DailyTech - Japanese Report Disputes Human Cause for Global Warming

    And this little nugget is interesting to:

    EPA Suppressed Global Warming Report | Sweetness & Light

    I'm accused of the "sky is falling" syndrome with heathcare, and folks like kabamm enjoy scaring everyone with Al Gore doomsday reports. I'm all for clean air and clean water, but some of these wackos would have us go back to horse and buggy if it was up to them. Tax and Trade...oops....I mean Cap and Trade would seriously harm the US competively, does nothing to stop China, Russia, and India from continueing their activities, and will end up "taxing" those making under $250k (despite what Obama says) with higher fees from energy companies.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #1742  
    [QUOTE=clemgrad85;1826266]It's not every scientist: DailyTech - Japanese Report Disputes Human Cause for Global Warming


    One of the real answers here is Nuclear Power. If you insist on bringing of the "unfair Cap and Trade" law, than you should look at this option. I for one shed no tear for rich capitalist companies having to pay some money for irresponsible and lazy acts.
    FRANCE, yes FRANCE(the country that allowed the creation of the US). Has the cleanest and safest power in the world.
    Nuclear Power in France | cleanskies.com


    Robert Kennedy called for reform in our energy system, our consumption of natural resources, and our education... until he was shot for it(go america).

    Read up on the fact he was calling for this reform in the 60's, when it needed to happen. It's possible it is not too late, but at least we got fat and lazy as a country, as is the right of all Empires before they fall.
    Lovin Sprint, and the Pre.
  3. #1743  
    [QUOTE=Sharkims;1826565]
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    It's not every scientist: DailyTech - Japanese Report Disputes Human Cause for Global Warming


    One of the real answers here is Nuclear Power. If you insist on bringing of the "unfair Cap and Trade" law, than you should look at this option. I for one shed no tear for rich capitalist companies having to pay some money for irresponsible and lazy acts.
    FRANCE, yes FRANCE(the country that allowed the creation of the US). Has the cleanest and safest power in the world.
    Nuclear Power in France | cleanskies.com


    Robert Kennedy called for reform in our energy system, our consumption of natural resources, and our education... until he was shot for it(go america).

    Read up on the fact he was calling for this reform in the 60's, when it needed to happen. It's possible it is not too late, but at least we got fat and lazy as a country, as is the right of all Empires before they fall.
    You will get no arguement from me on nuclear energy! But for some reason Obama continues to keep nuclear low on his list.

    As for your comment on "rich capitalist companies having to pay some money for irresponsible and lazy acts", I'm sure you know this, but they don't pay that money....well technically they do, but they first get it from customers by increasing their bill. It's not rocket science.....corporations simply pass taxes and fees on to consumers in the way of higher priced goods and services. Off topic...but...I'll say it again....the Fair Tax comes to mind here....but I digress.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  4. #1744  
    As for your comment on "rich capitalist companies having to pay some money for irresponsible and lazy acts", I'm sure you know this, but they don't pay that money....well technically they do, but they first get it from customers by increasing their bill. It's not rocket science.....corporations simply pass taxes and fees on to consumers in the way of higher priced goods and services. Off topic...but...I'll say it again....the Fair Tax comes to mind here....but I digress.
    Yeah, that is more correct. It's an entirely different issue, than what I mentioned.
    Lovin Sprint, and the Pre.
  5. #1745  
    I cannot believe, in light of what happened last week (aka email, code, data - gate) that this thread has not been revived. Or even a new thread. What does everyone think?
  6. #1746  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sharkims View Post
    FRANCE, yes FRANCE(the country that allowed the creation of the US
    I tought it was UK! Mistaken?!
  7. #1747  
    I just watched a documentary on the discovery channel mentioning the ebb & flow cycles of earth's glaciers and ice caps...

    10,000 yrs ago, European glaciers didn't just recede, they DISAPPEARED, allowing conquerors such as Genghis Khan & others to travel through what would otherwise be impassable mountain terrain..

    Did they recede because of Genghis Khan's carbon footprint?

    Similar occurrences at the polar ice caps took place. They nearly disappeared or receded alarmingly much as they are doing today. Why aren't the liberals talking about THAT inconvenient truth?
    Incidentally, there were NINE - count them - NINE major scientific errors in Gore's documentary of hyperbole and overexaggeration of facts meant to engender alarmism, yet the Nobel Peace Prize was still awarded to him. I guess facts and scientific accuracy aren't very important to te nobel academy. They are as politicallly transparent as cellophane.

    The point is, while India, China Europe and finally the US probably probably contribute at some level to environmental changes, this may very well be cyclical, as has been shown to be the case 10,000 years ago and many times before that as well.

    We have to be careful about the left's alarmism based on misrepresentation of "science" such as the case of Gore. Why haven't the Kennedy's and Gore forsaken their private jets, multiple SUV'S and multiple multiroom residences demanding egregious utility bills if they were so sincere in their "causes" to save the earth?
  8. gryn's Avatar
    Posts
    148 Posts
    Global Posts
    158 Global Posts
    #1748  
    Zeitgeist FTW!
  9. #1749  
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    I tought it was UK! Mistaken?!
    England was responsible for the original colonies, but were it not for France's military and financial support, the Revolutionary War may have gone differently.
    Link
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1750  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    I cannot believe, in light of what happened last week (aka email, code, data - gate) that this thread has not been revived. Or even a new thread. What does everyone think?
    Perhaps you're talking about the "we caused global warming hoax"?
    ---------------

    November 24, 2009 11:40 AM

    Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails

    (AP)A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.

    Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not," according to a transcript of a radio interview posted on his Web site. Aides for Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, are also looking into the disclosure.

    The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

    Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

    One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.")

    In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

    I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

    I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

    One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

    Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop *****footing around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

    Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...
    As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

    One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

    Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

    It's not clear how the files were leaked. One theory says that a malicious hacker slipped into East Anglia's network and snatched thousands of documents. Another says that the files had already been assembled in response to a Freedom of Information request and, immediately after it was denied, a whistleblower decided to disclose them. (Lending credence to that theory is the fact that no personal e-mail messages unrelated to climate change appear to have been leaked.)

    For its part, the University of East Anglia has posted a statement calling the disclosure "mischievous" and saying it is aiding the police in an investigation.

    The statement also quotes Jones, CRU's director, explaining his November 1999 e-mail, which said: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Jones said that the word trick was used "colloquially as in a clever thing to do" and that it "is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward."

    Also unclear is the ultimate impact of the leak, which came before next month's Copenhagen summit and Democratic plans for cap and trade legislation.

    On one hand, over at RealClimate.org, Gavin Schmidt, a modeler for the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been downplaying the leak. Schmidt wrote: "There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research ... no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."

    On the other, groups like the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, the target of repeated derision in the leaked e-mails, have said: "We have argued for many years that much of the scientific case for global warming alarmism was weak and some of it was phony. It now looks like a lot of it may be phony."

    ScienceMag.org published an article noting that deleting e-mail messages to hide them from a FOI request is a crime in the United Kingdom. George Monbiot, a U.K. activist and journalist who previously called for dramatic action to deal with global warming, wrote: "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."

    Complicating matters for congressional Republicans who'd like to hold hearings is that East Anglia, of course, is a U.K. university. The GOP may intend to press the Obama administration for details on how the EPA came to rely on the CRU's predictions, and whether the recent disclosure will change the agency's position. Another approach lies in e-mail messages discussing grants from the U.S. Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to East Anglia; one says: "We need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious."

    The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.

    ###

    Not only is this a politically driven hoax that will cost us billions of tax dollars (that will be redistributed internationally), it's a massive smear on the entire scientific community. I'm hoping that "actual" scientists will get involved and debunk the false junk science that's been made up, propped up, and cited to support man's impact on global warming.

    Otherwise, when will we ever be able to believe future scientific releases of information?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #1751  
    Seems now that Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" was just about spot on now doesn't it.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1752  
    The only thing left to do is to dismantle the IPCC. Their whole platform was based on this fudged data. It now has scientific foundation.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #1753  
    to the title I believe it is a maybe and a maybe.

    but, ultimately, i would like less pollution because it is often smelly, makes clean water harder to find/more expensive to process, and it looks terrible.

    plus there's a good chance there are negative health effects.

    so I say, lets reduce pollution, for our own enjoyment, and possible health benefits.

    plus, I like the trend in increased fuel economy even in base model 4-cylinder cars, because of the money I save long term. fossil fuels such as lepidodendron fodder, ultimately being exhaustible, means prices will ultimately go up, and people will ultimately find new ways of doing things.
    There are four lights.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1754  
    Quote Originally Posted by windzilla View Post
    to the title I believe it is a maybe and a maybe.

    but, ultimately, i would like less pollution because it is often smelly, makes clean water harder to find/more expensive to process, and it looks terrible.

    plus there's a good chance there are negative health effects.

    so I say, lets reduce pollution, for our own enjoyment, and possible health benefits.

    plus, I like the trend in increased fuel economy even in base model 4-cylinder cars, because of the money I save long term. fossil fuels such as lepidodendron fodder, ultimately being exhaustible, means prices will ultimately go up, and people will ultimately find new ways of doing things.
    Agree, agree, and agree. We were on to cleaner air, cleaner environment, and reduction in dependancy on fossil fuels programs before the left's agenda driven man-made global warming hoax. I say those programs need to be continued.

    But we do not need to be signing stupid international wealth redistribution treaties because of fears founded on a hoax. That IPCC crap is all about bleeding billions out of the US, and distributing it to the rest of the world (and corporations like GE) - and you and I will be footin the bill.

    Cap and Trade is bogus.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1755  
    Climate change data dumped - Times Online

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
    ...
  16. #1756  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Perhaps you're talking about the "we caused global warming hoax"?
    ---------------

    November 24, 2009 11:40 AM

    Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails

    (AP)A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change
    Yes, that's it. I thought that posts about this would've started appearing here much earlier, based on how hot this topic was here for a time. Checked Off Topic a few times over the course of about a week but nothing appeared, so I decide to ask. Of course, our reliable media "establishment" had been pretty much mum on it early on - but the info was out there. Reminds me of the media's reporting of, um, ACORN, and other "bad" news.

    Quote Originally Posted by windzilla View Post
    to the title I believe it is a maybe and a maybe.

    but, ultimately, i would like less pollution because it is often smelly, makes clean water harder to find/more expensive to process, and it looks terrible.

    plus there's a good chance there are negative health effects.

    so I say, lets reduce pollution, for our own enjoyment, and possible health benefits.

    plus, I like the trend in increased fuel economy even in base model 4-cylinder cars, because of the money I save long term. fossil fuels such as lepidodendron fodder, ultimately being exhaustible, means prices will ultimately go up, and people will ultimately find new ways of doing things.
    Nothing to do with it (in my mind anyway). I think very few would object to your desires (who wouldn't?).

    They're talking about CO2 (for the most part). Given the miniscule amounts they're saying we emit, the most you can say is that we're contributing a weak "oxygen bar" for the world's plant life.

    There are non-scientific rebuttals out on the net that point to how Venus has a surface of temp of about 450 gazillion degrees (kind of like our earth's core, info courtesy of AG*) because of an atmosphere containing ~95% CO2. No mention about how much closer it is to the sun, atmospheric water content, atmospheric pressure, or anything else.

    But then there's Mars, also with ~95% CO2, and I think it's cold as hell there (although farther from the sun).

    I'm not saying we shouldn't minimize our emissions. We should always strive to reduce our "wastes". Let's just focus on things that are truly significant and find realistic ways to resolve them.

    Trust, but verify (a 60's creed, but pretty much lost, then made more popular by RR).

    * AG, one of the main media proponents of AGW, a.k.a. AlGore'sWorld.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1757  
    You mean the same Al Gore who is responsible for the creation of the internet, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for Climate Change?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1758  
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1759  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You mean the same Al Gore who is responsible for the creation of the internet, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for Climate Change?
    People "win" those things? I got mine from a box of Cracker Jacks.
  20. #1760  
    Yes, folks who are on the right - and who receive talking points from the industry leaders who stand to benefit from not addressing climate issues - think that one set of data comprises all of the data ever collected on climate change.

    It's all part of the "we don't use science or logic, we lead from our gut" management style that the Bush administration relied on, and which contines the feudal arrangement of the rich lording over the compliant poor.

Posting Permissions