Warmest in 400 Years

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You write this shit to me on purpose, don’t you? [/quote]

I have to admit that pissing Texan Republicans off is one of my favorite pastimes. It’s an easy and cheap never-ending source of entertainment… :slight_smile:

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The ones pumping out the bullshit are happy to use scare tactics to get grant money.

Hmmm. Sounds like government.

Yup. Both parties do it.[/quote]

Unfortunately we live in a society where fear is considered one of the most legitimate tools and is definitely the most commonly used behavior conditioning tool by the right.

The right defends fear-based conditioning tools much, much more than the left – things like at-will employment and the death penalty. They have been using fear to win elections for centuries – the fear of change, the fear of a foreign attack. Most recently, fear was used to rally support to invadeIraq.

Still today, the people that you see everyday defending fear as a tool are almost invariably conservatives.

Most liberals do not support using fear as a tool at all – in fact, to echo FDR’s famous words, we feel that we should have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Global Warming is a very unique exception. In this case, the left is making an exception and using that tool to rally support from the few remaining nay-sayers in the right. When in Rome, be Roman… Can’t blame us for that. :slight_smile:

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Condemning billions of people to shortened uncomfortable lives because we eliminate most of our energy in the hopes that four generations later the CO2 in the atmosphere drops and the temperature returns to a mythical “normal” point all because incredibly flawed data and a slanted analysis indicates man made CO2 may be slightly increasing global temps?

By your risk management standards I am amazed you are brave enough to get out of bed in the morning or cross the street.[/quote]

Risk management and risk-averting (or, even, aversion) are two completely different things. I support the former, not either of the latter. If you don’t know the difference, read up.

I get the feeling that most of the reporters haven’t even read the executive summary, much less the report.

The report (not a study) called the original GW-scare conclusion “plausible” – which, apparently in journalist speak means the debate is over. More like damning with feint praise, particularly when in the next line they say: “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium’”

So, one panel member gives an interview that says it’s “likely,” the reporters skip reading the executive summary and run out with some scare global warming story that meets their particular agenda.

I have a feeling once this sinks in they won’t be so happy. It seems to me this interjects more, not less, doubt into the situation.

Oh this is going to be depressing isn’t it?

New science is going to be refuted with old claims of hockey sticks until the Bush administration is out of the White House. Kinda similar to the recent article by David Barr.

There is no use even worrying about this until a science friendly (truth friendly) administration is in office.

It’s ludicrous to imagine that centuries of widescale pollution can’t have a negative impact on our environment.

The fact that there are uncertainties doesn’t invalidate everything. Stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because you don’t like the idea that there could be a problem.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh this is going to be depressing isn’t it?

New science is going to be refuted with old claims of hockey sticks until the Bush administration is out of the White House. Kinda similar to the recent article by David Barr.

There is no use even worrying about this until a science friendly (truth friendly) administration is in office.

It’s ludicrous to imagine that centuries of widescale pollution can’t have a negative impact on our environment.

The fact that there are uncertainties doesn’t invalidate everything. Stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because you don’t like the idea that there could be a problem.[/quote]

Why don’t you point me toward:

  1. A demonstrated tolerance band for past climate determinations that is actually less than the differences we are trying to discern in the present, and attempting to model into the future

  2. Real climate models, which are constituted of global scale versions of the minimally acceptable finite element modelling methodologies currently used in things like designs for thermal controls in electronic equipment or the designs of hydraulic systems.

  3. A definitive demonstration of the data quality of things such as the surface temperature record, sea ice coverage, and other “proxies” currently used to reconstruct the paleo climate

  4. In depth, agnostic studies of negative and positive feedback mechanisms which yield real data as opposed to speculation

  5. A particular focus on the dynamic response of CaCO3 cystalizing plankton to current and predicted levels of atmospheric CO2

  6. A particular focus on the characteristics and innate levels of variation of the broad spectrum of energy that is incident upon the Earth from the Sun and all other external sources.

These 6 things would be a really good start toward moving beyond posturing and getting into substantive discussion.

Or until you get those, perhaps you could move your focus away from SUVs to the amount of coal the Chinese and Indians plan to burn over the next twenty or so years… That might actually be productive, if you happen to think you might be right on CO2 emissions.

Here’s a nice blog post from an assistant professor physics at Harvard [edit for correction of institution] (I didn’t take the time to look him up, just looked at his blog) on the report and the press conference:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/06/nas-schizofrenic-climate-report.html

Some good links too - including one to the audio of the press conference, and one to buy the whole report.

This is the description of the press conference:

“They analyze who is responsible why they oversold the certainty etc.”

This is very interesting as they haven’t had the technology to accurately measure the earth’s temperature for 400 hundred year, so how do they factually know it is hotter? Perhaps they just have more accurate means of measurement now and the earth has always been this hot?

This sounds like the same kind of science used to determine that Lake Tahoe was getting polluted over the last 60 years as the clarity of the water was being reduced. This determination was reached by one “scientist” and pushed by the Liberal media. His method of measurement was to put a bright colored weight on the end of a rope and lower it down in the water until he could not see it anymore. And yes, he is the same guy who has been eyeballing this thing for 60 years. And yes, he is one old fat. And yes, he can’t see as well as he used to. So yes, it is highly likely that the water is the same clarity he just can’t see as well.

I just love popular science it’s so scientific!

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Here’s a nice blog post from an assistant professor physics at Harvard [edit for correction of institution] (I didn’t take the time to look him up, just looked at his blog) on the report and the press conference:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/06/nas-schizofrenic-climate-report.html

Some good links too - including one to the audio of the press conference, and one to buy the whole report.

This is the description of the press conference:

“They analyze who is responsible why they oversold the certainty etc.”[/quote]

Must read for all!

It appears this report DOWNGRADES the likelihood of human influenced global warming.

It is amazing the media can spin it to say the opposite.

The report says it is plausible. CNN changes plausible to likely. Disgusting!

I cant be arsed to worry about it BB, for these reasons:

  • Global warming will turn all of the US farmland into one big worthless dessert.

  • Global warming will extend the season and scope of Canada’s farmland greatly.

  • Global warming will eventually submerge many huge metropolitan areas on the US and European coasts.

  • Global warming will sink a few Canadian cities, which we’ll easily evacuate.

  • Global warming will strengthen hurricanes so they can bend over the southern states and ravage them mercilessly.

  • Global warming may bring more thunderstorms and possibly a small increase in tornado activity to Canada.

You want global warming? Bring it on buddy! All you are going to do is ease our winters, enhance our farming, and increase our importance in the world… seriously.

I don’t know why I’m trying to point you to the potential disaster staring you in the face. I don’t know why you guys don’t take it more seriously… given it’s really your risk.

Why should I care? It’s not like it’s toxic waste or anything. Bring it on, Canada will be a big winner if it actually happens.

On a positive note, the Chinese are in fact putting in a huge plan to build nuclear power plants to help meet their growing needs.

Yes, it certainly will take time.

I wish the US and Canada would find a way to build some new and safe nuclear power plants.

[quote]hspder wrote:

"
The panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree F during the 20th century.
"

There is clearly dissent in the GOP about this – with the usual ultra-conservative Texans going against the more moderate, intelligent Republicans, who advise them to use their brains for a change and wake up and smell the coffee:

"
[…]
The report was requested last November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.
"

My advice to the remaining naysayers in the GOP: you make yourself look like fools by continuing to deny what is obvious to a large part of the electorate. Stop it, or your whole party will pay come November.
[/quote]

CACA DE TORO.

[quote]vroom wrote:
On a positive note, the Chinese are in fact putting in a huge plan to build nuclear power plants to help meet their growing needs.

Yes, it certainly will take time.

I wish the US and Canada would find a way to build some new and safe nuclear power plants.[/quote]

On this, at least, we agree.

As to your alarmists things about what “will” happen with a linearly increasing temperature based on ridiculous assumptions, I’m glad you prefaced them with the visual of you being “arsed”.

Heh, they have to use words that the general public can understand y’know.

[quote]vroom wrote:
On a positive note, the Chinese are in fact putting in a huge plan to build nuclear power plants to help meet their growing needs.

Yes, it certainly will take time.

I wish the US and Canada would find a way to build some new and safe nuclear power plants.[/quote]

The Chinese are also bringing approximately one coal fired powerplant online every week and plan on doing so for years.

I am mixed on nukes.

bwahahahaha! that was funny. several of the boards libs just shit themselves reading that. oh and i am sure somewhere a puppy died. thanks a lot!

[quote]vroom wrote:
…Why should I care? It’s not like it’s toxic waste or anything. Bring it on, Canada will be a big winner if it actually happens.[/quote]

This guy is my new hero.

Sorry Marmaduke but I posted the whole thing. The link is amusing for a picture of Gore and more links anyway.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/al-gore-kyoto-and-canada.html

Al Gore, Kyoto, and Canada

The Canadian conservative government of Stephen Harper has made one of the obvious rational decisions: they have erased the Kyoto protocol from their federal budget and slashed funding for the greenhouse gas programs, bringing their country closer to the rest of the civilized North America. I always believed that they would be trying to act in this direction. Many people including Steve McIntyre did not believe me.

The Tories care about the environment but they also care about common sense. They prefer solutions that make sense and have a high enough chance to work. They will introduce tax breaks to support the public transportation, among other things. Alberta in particular is rather happy and wants to
keep Kyoto in grave.

Note that according to Kyoto, Canadians would eventually have to pay about $600 per family for carbon dioxide credits. It’s not a devastating amount but still, it is silly to throw money away for such entirely useless things and it is even sillier to torture yourself even if you know that you will have to pay anyway.

When the Tories planned to return rational thinking to the environmental policymaking, they had to think about possible criticism. But I guess that there exists no real threat to be afraid of. Who are the critics? They’re people like Al Gore. If you have forgotten, Al Gore is a megalomanic eco-prophet who has had plans to control the entire territory of the United States of America six years ago. Now he tries to promote his movie full of convenient untrue statements (they’re convenient for the producers’ pockets):

Gore’s truth
The movie argues that the planet will face a catastrophe in 10 years (…) unless the instructions of the prophet and narrator Gore will be followed. Moreover, Gore is now explaining that climate change is no longer a political issue: it has become a spiritual (religious) issue! Wow. The debate is over and a new era of crucification of those who find the prophet intellectually challenged is getting started.

When read the “made-in-Canada” quotes from Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, Gore rolled his eyes and made a flag-waving gesture with his hand. During his stay in Toronto, Gore also claimed that the government had no mandate to make any decisions about the environment. I guess that Gore believes that he has a mandate himself - a direct mandate from the God of climate change. :wink:

[quote]vroom wrote:
I cant be arsed to worry about it BB, for these reasons:

  • Global warming will turn all of the US farmland into one big worthless dessert.

  • Global warming will extend the season and scope of Canada’s farmland greatly.

  • Global warming will eventually submerge many huge metropolitan areas on the US and European coasts.

  • Global warming will sink a few Canadian cities, which we’ll easily evacuate.

  • Global warming will strengthen hurricanes so they can bend over the southern states and ravage them mercilessly.

  • Global warming may bring more thunderstorms and possibly a small increase in tornado activity to Canada.

You want global warming? Bring it on buddy! All you are going to do is ease our winters, enhance our farming, and increase our importance in the world… seriously.

I don’t know why I’m trying to point you to the potential disaster staring you in the face. I don’t know why you guys don’t take it more seriously… given it’s really your risk.

Why should I care? It’s not like it’s toxic waste or anything. Bring it on, Canada will be a big winner if it actually happens.[/quote]

f—k yeah! that what i am talking aboot! bring it on, when it hits, i am moving in with vroom up in the “former” great white north. good times.

FYI vroom, i like my breakfast served to me in bed by 9 AM, and i like the right side of the bed, spooning is optional but recommended.

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

f—k yeah! that what i am talking aboot! bring it on, when it hits, i am moving in with vroom up in the “former” great white north. good times.

FYI vroom, i like my breakfast served to me in bed by 9 AM, and i like the right side of the bed, spooning is optional but recommended. [/quote]

And don’t forget the backbacon, eh.

[quote]hspder wrote:

Unfortunately we live in a society where fear is considered one of the most legitimate tools and is definitely the most commonly used behavior conditioning tool by the right.[/quote]

Well, at least we can agree on that point. Remember when the republicans tried to scare all the old people and claim that Bush was going to lower their SS benefits?

And remember also during the last election when certain republicans were trying to use scare tactics by saying that if Bush were reelected that there was going to be a draft?

And…Oh wait hold on!

That was the democrats using fear tactics…never mind.

You know as much about politics as you do the environment…