What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

I don't know about you, but I would avoid peeing into the boot to begin with.

He who has enough sense to pour pee out of a boot also has the sense not to pour pee into the boot to begin with, so congratulations to you. You may now climb out of the sack and get away from the other doorknobs.

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

He who has enough sense to pour pee out of a boot also has the sense not to pour pee into the boot to begin with, so congratulations to you. You may now climb out of the sack and get away from the other doorknobs.

Thank you. Do I get a diploma for graduating from doorknob school?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Boston

actually mark the Japanese had been trying to sue for peace and the US was ignoring them. It is thought that the US was hoping to experiment with the bombs and see how well they worked although this view is controversial. The emperor had attempted to convince his military that surrender was the only way to save the people. Hirohito was not after all such a bad sort and it was his advisers and military leaders who had pushed him into the rash actions of entering WW2. He himself was relatively detached from the real world and in the end he although emperor "did what he was told"

Japan was defeated long before the decision to drop the bomb
there economy destroyed
there military output reduced to less than subsistence levels
almost every town and city had been burned to ashes
except maybe Nagasaki and Hiroshima which were full of refugees
the brutality of the Bushito code is not in question
but the brutality of war must be held to the light
the USA nuked civilians huddled in fear and ignored attempts to find a negotiated peace
which is kinda odd cause if you really dig into the surrender of Japan you will find it to have been a conditional surrender
and not what the history books would have us believe
the emperor was never held accountable and his palace never violated nor was there much more than a theft of national treasures by the US
no reparations were demanded and no trials of consequence held like what happened in Nuremberg
instead we simply reorganized the feudal lord system into a feudal business system

hardly what the text books suggest and definitely not an unconditional surrender
I would recommend the two books by Saburu Sakai as a primer for any discussion concerning the state of Japan towards the end of WW2 and also recommend Oppenheimer memoirs "Oppenheimer is watching me"

the simple reality is that history is written by the victors
as an Iroquois I feel imminently qualified to speak to this issue

getting back to a more relevant point the simple truth is that a PHD is somewhat detached from the norm and as such often able to provide a valuable insight that might otherwise be overlooked
as I said its a two edged sword

the ability to distance ones self from the mundane in my view places science in a unique position uniquely able to illuminate truths otherwise over shadowed by the more servile of distractions

You're rewriting history to suit yourself, Boston. And you're getting pretty whack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were hardly refugee camps; they were legitimate military targets.

To be specific, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.

Nagasaki was a center of heavy industry. Its main industry was ship-building, with the dockyards under control of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries being one of the prime contractors for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and with Nagasaki harbor used as an anchorage under the control of nearby Sasebo Naval District.

And claiming that almost every city and town besides those two had already been turned to ashes is complete BS, too. If you had ever been to Japan, you might have noticed that the towns and cities date back a lot farther than 1945....

Yes, Japan took a lot of damage. No, we didn't carpet bomb the entire friggen country. Stop getting carried away.

[Boston]

as you can see Allan the level of conversation is simply not up to the purported "scientific debate" pretended by the deniers camp. Essentially anything to distract or denigrate the opinions of what they must perceive as the educated class. Its a typical response of frustration by people who do not comprehend the subject mater and can be seen throughout the educational process. Not sure what your teaching experience might be but I've seen it over and over again, unsavory as it is, its common, typically reserved for children but sometimes evident in adults as well, particularly in the self employed.

as far as the so called inalienable freedoms of this country goes I think those have been pretty well usurped by our beloved previous administration



if this isnt evidence of that basic lack of respect the public gets from politicians then I'd have to ask for another definition of lack of respect

a simple logic path proves my point about the desperate need of a revolution in this country

in China one may not speak out against the government
in Russia one may not speak out against the government
in Cuba one may not speak out against the government
and are you suggesting Mark that now in American one may not speak out against the government ?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

But carrying on like having one somehow makes a person mentally defective is just plain asinine.

What???

I was thinking specifically of Mark's post, Hoyte. I should probably have referenced it.

Originally Posted by mark775

"Common sense" in a PhD is the same as the word "truth" when refering to Congress... What they'll do with this, or worse, what treaty the pretender in the White House will sign that will force our hand are the only relevant aspects of AGW. Havn't yet found any relevance in anything you copy and paste but, at least, you aren't as dangerous.

Judging by that and some of his other posts, Mark seems to have a heavy streak of irrational populism -- expressed as resentment against intellectuals, academics and other so-called "elites" -- mixed into his politics.

I am generalizing, of course but the important thing is not that I "don't... know the relationship between a PhD and anything else", but that, in general, PhD's don't. You strung a tennis racket and are still "picking cherries" good for you. You absolutely DO NOT GET IT. The mere fact that you are debating from a pro-AGW position states that you have no point of reference in reality. This AGW "science" **** is done, gone, kaputt and the power grab that is AGW has been set back so far that it will be some time before the government can manufacture a new crises. They may push this thru, and there are still some hold-outs (I cannot believe the Brits are entertaining another F'ing progressive for PM. I have to wonder about our overseas brethren...Churchill saves the world - so they give the post-war job to Chamberlain. Thatcher saved England from it's psychology of decline and they devolve to Brown, now likely Clegg.) but America, at least, is awakening and linking AGW to liberal fascist power grabs. More Americans now laugh at AGW than are willing to sell us down the road for its dubious threat.

Top Scientists Warn: Sea Gods Angry
(response to CNN "science" "writer" Alan Weisman examining the Icelandic volcano eruption and deducing the cause: an angry Gaia striking back at us carbon sinners http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/2...ex.html?hpt=C2 - from Ed Driscoll, http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/ )


Washington, DC - Pointing to the devastating weekend Indian Ocean tsunami that left over 24,000 dead, an international blue ribbon committee of climatologists and ecoscientists today issued a stark warning that man-made pollutants have increasingly "make water spirits angry."

The blunt conclusion prefaced a 2300 page meta-analysis of hundreds of scientific studies and computer models detailing links between human industrial activity and wrathful eco-deities. Entitled "Fire Bad: Fire Very Bad," the report warns that the planet faces additional catastrophies unless drastic regulatory action is taken to appease Earthen-furies.

"Unclean money devils anger sacred water spirit Tai-Waku," explained Martin Knudson of Scripps Oceanic Institute. "He now call angry to son the whale, 'make slap with anger-tails! Bring vengeance-surf to villagers!'"

While most empirical evidence supports the theory of wrathful whale-tail slappings, some scientists are exploring alternative hypotheses for the weekend tsunami. Ecobiologist Jane Geary of UC Santa Cruz points to mounting evidence that the ocean spirit-world may have been driven to gastrointestinal rage by gas-guzzling SUVs.

"Thunder-wagon make smoke cloud of greenhouse gas," explained Geary. "hungry Tai-Waku eat smoke from thunder-wagon, pass giant wind with mighty fury."

Peter Novak, chief science officer of the Sierra Club, dismissed Geary's "Divine Fart" theory, arguing it was more likely that SUVs had triggered the tsunami via a spirit underword sexual encounter.

"Wheels of thunder-wagons wake up Big Earth Spirit-Mother, make to crazy tingle in hairy child-place. She now go to water lair of Tai-Waku, make big angry love on tectonic plate," said Novak. "Big Earth Spirit-Mother say, 'if ocean rocking, don't come a-knocking.'"

Although they disagree on the precise causes of the wrathful spirit world, scientists were largely unanimous in recommending immediate global regulatory action. Remedial steps suggested in the report include ratification of the Kyoto treaty, elimination of automobiles, volcanic altars for virgin sacrifices, creation of a sustainable urine-based economy, and improved faculty dental benefits.

"If not act now, it too late," said report editor Paul Erlich of Stanford University.

Erlich, whose 1978 best seller "Ice Time Come Soon" is widely credited with saving millions of lives by warning of the massive age of glaciation that threatened Earth during the 1980s, said inaction might anger the spirit world further.

"Me not know when Tai-Waku make wrath again," said Erlich. "Me need more grant money."

****, Troy and I agreed on something. Hallelujah, brothers!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mark775

****, Troy and I agreed on something. Hallelujah, brothers!

Bound to happen eventually, Mark. We both talk a lot.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mark775

I am generalizing, of course but the important thing is not that I "don't... know the relationship between a PhD and anything else", but that, in general, PhD's don't. You strung a tennis racket and are still "picking cherries" good for you. You absolutely DO NOT GET IT. The mere fact that you are debating from a pro-AGW position states that you have no point of reference in reality.

OK, agreement time is over. I think Alan very definitely qualifies as a legitimate scientist, Mark. So apparently you're saying all the thousands of scientists in the world who believe AGW is real aren't just wrong....they're disconnected from reality, because they don't agree with your scientific beliefs. That's a pretty breathtaking claim, my friend.

The word chutzpah comes to mind...along with arrogance and ignorance, of course; the two often go hand-in-hand. You're certainly bolstering my earlier comments about your hostile attitude towards anyone who might be better educated or more informed than you.

But for the love of Mike: if you insist on going on going off into these rants, could you at least learn the difference between a fascist and a liberal first? People who are so ill-informed they don't know the difference between Nazis, fascists, communists, socialists, liberals, moderates and libertarians should really shut up and read a book. Have a nice cup of tea while you're at it; maybe it'll calm you down.

Not because they don't agree with me, Troy. Because they believe in "consensus science", because they think the stakes are so large that it's worth doctoring the books - Not all of them, mind you. Some are simply going along with the flow because they don't want to look dumb. The real test of character will be how they present themselves as the story unfolds that GW isn't A (if, by some freak accident, that were to happen!), because THEY tend to be the ones with Chutzpah. No, many people are better educated than I and many, many have more education than I (although some of the smartest people I know have not much formal education). I know plenty of advanced degrees and my first ex has her Psy.D. she needed to get her head out of her...clouds. I paid for that (****, now I AM in a bad mood)

[Jimbo1490]

Some interesting stuff from Jo Nova:

"Rajendra Pachauri states:

"IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin."

As usual, it’s honest volunteers who have conscientiously tested the IPCC by going through 18,500 references. And the final total? Fully 5,600, or 30% of their references are not peer reviewed."

Read the rest here and here.

Jimbo

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mark775

Not because they don't agree with me, Troy. Because they believe in "consensus science", because they think the stakes are so large that it's worth doctoring the books - Not all of them, mind you. Some are simply going along with the flow because they don't want to look dumb. The real test of character will be how they present themselves as the story unfolds that GW isn't A (if, by some freak accident, that were to happen!), because THEY tend to be the ones with Chutzpah. No, many people are better educated than I and many, many have more education than I (although some of the smartest people I know have not much formal education). I know plenty of advanced degrees and my first ex has her Psy.D. she needed to get her head out of her...clouds. I paid for that (****, now I AM in a bad mood)

You've got it bass awkwards, Mark. The vast majority of scientists don't believe AGW is real because there's a consensus; there's a consensus because the vast majority of scientists believe it's real. Check your Webster's for the definition of a consensus.

You might as well try to tell us people voted for Obama because he had a majority. No....he had a majority because people voted for him.

When it comes to your ex-wife, don't try to blame the academic community for your personal problems. She hardly proves everyone with a PhD is clueless.

Tell me: if having a PhD makes people useless and ignorant, where do you think we should draw the line? Is it OK to get a Masters degree, or does that screw people up too? How about a BA or a BS? Do you think folks can handle those?

Maybe the world of science would be better off if if budding scientists dropped out during their junior year and just started doing research. Or maybe they shouldn't enroll at all, if education is so dangerous to their minds....

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Some interesting stuff from Jo Nova:

"Rajendra Pachauri states:

"IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin."

As usual, it’s honest volunteers who have conscientiously tested the IPCC by going through 18,500 references. And the final total? Fully 5,600, or 30% of their references are not peer reviewed."

Read the rest here and here.

Jimbo

Are these the same sort of 'honest' volunteers who hack email accounts?

[masrapido]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

Let me amplify this point. There have been multiple official investigations of climate gate and other alleged cases of improper conduct by climate scientist who favor the global warming hypothesis. Some have issued their reports already and some have not issued them yet. However, none of the reports so far (as far as I have been able to determine) have concluded that there was any faking of the data or fraudulent behavior, and none have reported anything that would change the scientific consensus.

Maybe Jimbo knows of some investigative bodies that have reached the opposite conclusions, or maybe he has some secret source of information not available to others. Either way he should tell us where he can find the information, but he does not seem to be so inclined. He much prefers to make his accusations without providing documentation to support his accusations.

The New Scientist just recently published article for its' usanian following where they had reported that the email fiasco was actually a misinterpretation by a number of ill-intended individuals in a scientific community, who were apparently guided by their jealousy.

I can confirm that it was reported in a number of other national networks such as TVE (Spain), TVC (Chile), Deutsche Welle (Germany) and TV France2.

So, another nail in the already well secured coffin of deniers' hopes...

Although I think that there was a bit of cover=up and jealousy from the AGW mobsters too. But one can not expect anglos to come clean on anything, as history has thaught us to date. If one wants to know the truth, one needs to make an effort to digest and analyse all sides and then hopefully make sense of the crap for himself.

Taking one side and sticking to it, despite abundance of evidence revealing dishonesty, is just childlish.

(that will be a synonimus for "stupid" in this particular context...)

[Boston]

its simply ludicrous to think that the IPCC has some vested interest in predicting disastrous consequences, Im sure these guys would greatly prefer to have some good news rather than the stark reality we are faced with

I cant help but notice that the deniers camp is comprised of thieves, former tobacco industry spokesman, oil and gas PR employees, pseudo scientists payed for preconceived conclusions and phony papers as well as some dwindling number of novices who discovered that big oil and dirty coal would pay for web space on forums like this one. Only reason I can imagine Jeff would allow this to go on like it has. Yet these same deniers are so quick to accuse honest scientists struggling to earn enough to buy a pizza or pay off there student loan of selling out.

sorry guys but its laughable to even consider these wild claims you present with only the evidence of thieves to back it up

barring any rational counter theory is this really the best you can do is attempt to create an issue out of what two or three emails in millions

sorry but its just laughable that this is such a big deal to some of you guys

one or two emails and you suggest they supersede what a hundred and fifty years of science by tens of thousands of scientist



I tried to throw you a few points for that last Masrapido but this darn thing wont let me