What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

just so everyone can see that I did present this completely within the context of the literature within which it is found

cheers
B

Why don't you try to find a graph of CO2 concentration that's not the result of deliberate malpractice, bordering on fraud, wherein disparate data sets are just slapped together as if they were seamless? Those graphs are around, why not post one? Do you warmers do this with all your data? Is ANY of it honest, or is it all basically like the frauds you keep posting, where Vostok ice core data is crammed together with recent high-resolution direct measurements?

Jimbo

[Boston]

Don't you mean like this?

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43393&stc=1&d=1274241472

is that what you mean by cut and paist Jimmy cause your cut and paste was a particularly good example of cutting and pasting something that you clearly do not understand in place of having anything to say for your own mistakes

simple reality is that the process is overwhelmed due to the increased rate at which co2 is being artificially released by the human activities

[Boston]

Why don't you try to find a graph of CO2 concentration that's not the result of deliberate malpractice, bordering on fraud, wherein disparate data sets are just slapped together as if they were seamless? Those graphs are around, why not post one? Do you warmers do this with all your data? Is ANY of it honest, or is it all basically like the frauds you keep posting, where Vostok ice core data is crammed together with recent high-resolution direct measurements?

Jimbo

deliberate malpractice

care to justify that wild claim

once again a clearly unsubstantiated claim
do you have any data to back yet another wild claim
do you have any pertinent material that you can show as having been censured by the scientific community for a failure similar to the one you are complaining about
is there a single aspect of the data in the graphs I presented that is being questioned by the atmospheric science community
can you show that data sets of varying resolutions are not regularly used by all sciences
can you establish that a common denominator of resolution is the norm within the sciences
can you show fraud in any of the data pools presented in the graph posted
do you have a single corroborating source to lend any credibility at all to your wild accusations
is there a single scientist who supports your view concerning this resolution issue
can you present any similar arguments by qualified climate scientists
is there a single precedent within the climate sciences where a data set was rejected because it failed to convert to a common resolution
do you have a leg to stand on
or is this just more bluff and bluster deliberately intended to distract from the obvious

co2 has been released by man so fast that the temp is rushing to catch up as indicated in this latest graphic

http://www.ess.washington.edu/~steig/images/epicagore.gif

[alanrockwood]

Don't you mean like this?

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43393&stc=1&d=1274241472

The information in this link is more relevant.

http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc102/Section5.pdf

Figure 5.7 of that link gives the solubility of CaCO3 as a function of -log(pCO2), where pCO2 is the partial pressure of CO2 expressed in atmospheres. Currently pCO2 is 0.00038 atmospheres, so -log(pCO2) has a value of 3.4. At this value of pCO2 the solubility of CaCO3 is essentially constant as a function of pCO2. Eventually, as CO2 increases still further then the solubility of CaCO3 decreases. This occurs at about -log(pCO2)=-1.

However, let's continue to look at the region around -log(pCO2) 3.4. Notice that as pCO2 increases the concentration of Calcium ion also increases. Where does that Calcium come from? Unlike CO2 it can't come from thin air. It comes from Calcium carbonate. This means that calcium carbonate must dissolve in order to supply the increasing calcium ion concentration.

By the way, I apologize for not including the figure in this post. I was not able to cut and paste it from the document.

[alanrockwood]

The information in this link is more relevant.

http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc102/Section5.pdf

Figure 5.7 of that link gives the solubility of CaCO3 as a function of -log(pCO2), where pCO2 is the partial pressure of CO2 expressed in atmospheres. Currently pCO2 is 0.00038 atmospheres, so -log(pCO2) has a value of 3.4. At this value of pCO2 the solubility of CaCO3 is essentially constant as a function of pCO2. Eventually, as CO2 increases still further then the solubility of CaCO3 decreases. This occurs at about -log(pCO2)=-1.

However, let's continue to look at the region around -log(pCO2) 3.4. Notice that as pCO2 increases the concentration of Calcium ion also increases. Where does that Calcium come from? Unlike CO2 it can't come from thin air. It comes from Calcium carbonate. This means that calcium carbonate must dissolve in order to supply the increasing calcium ion concentration.

By the way, I apologize for not including the figure in this post. I was not able to cut and paste it from the document.

Oh, and one more thing, notice that the calcium bicarbonate concentration is increasing with increasing pCO2, in agreement with my post on carbonate-bicarbonate chemistry made a little earlier this evening.

[hoytedow]

Why don't you try to find a graph of CO2 concentration that's not the result of deliberate malpractice, bordering on fraud, wherein disparate data sets are just slapped together as if they were seamless? Those graphs are around, why not post one? Do you warmers do this with all your data? Is ANY of it honest, or is it all basically like the frauds you keep posting, where Vostok ice core data is crammed together with recent high-resolution direct measurements?

JimboThat is an understatement.

[Boston]

rite

feel free to list your issues with these guys and then send em in for a peer review
should be worth a few good laughs at least

I like how you just go ahead and accuse these guys of fraud without presenting one lick of detailed analysis as to what specific data was fraudulent

I believe thats called another wild and unsubstantiated claim

do that in front of a peer review panel and you would get laughed right out of the room every time

European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA)
Summary

EPICA is a multinational European project for deep ice core drilling in Antarctica. Its main objective is to obtain full documentation of the climatic and atmospheric record archived in Antarctic ice by drilling and analyzing two ice cores and comparing these with their Greenland counterparts. Evaluation of these records will provide information about the natural climate variability and mechanisms of rapid climatic changes during the last glacial epoch. More


Deep drilling has taken place at two sites in Antarctica:

• Concordia Station, Dome C (coordinates 75°06’S; 123°21’E, 3233 m above sea level) Go to Website:

This site was chosen to obtain the longest undisturbed chronicle of environmental change, in order to characterise climate variability over several glacial cycles, and to study potential climate forcings and their relationship to events in other regions. Drilling was completed at this site in December 2004, reaching a drilling depth of 3270.2 m, 5 m above bedrock. The retrieved core will extend the record to an age estimated to be around 890 000 years old.

http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/damfiles/DomeCdrillingfromLAsmall.jpg

• Kohnen Station, Dronning Maud Land (coordinates 75°00’S; 00°04’E, 2892 m above sea level):

Higher annual snowfall and sensitivity to conditions over the South Atlantic will allow study of any links between shifts in the Atlantic Ocean circulation and the rapid climate events detected over Greenland.

The ESF EPICA Programme (1996-2006) provides co-ordination for EPICA drilling activities at Dome Concordia and Kohnen Station, which are supported by the European Commission and by national contributions from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.


Duration

Five years, from January 1996 to December 2000.
Extended for a further six years, January 2001 to December 2006

http://www.ess.washington.edu/~steig/images/epicagore.gif

[mark775]

"The hottest new trend in climate change"

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/

[hoytedow]

Drillin' all them damn holes is lettin' all the cold out.

[alanrockwood]

"The hottest new trend in climate change"

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/

Well there you go, Fox news. It must be true then.

[Boston]

I cant help but notice that as the level and detail of data and professionalism has gone up on the side of science the level of comprehension and quality of data sources has gone down on the deniers side.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, there simply is no coherent and comprehensive counter theory to that of Rapid Global Climate Shift
therefor the deniers simply resort to picking around the edges of the many branches of science that make up the theory and in the end, show nothing of any substantial error within the theory

I would like to invite any of our silent readers to ask any question they might have and see who provides the more detailed and accurate response wither pro or con.

cheers
B

[Brent Swain]

"The hottest new trend in climate change"

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/
Fox news and CNN are a right wing propaganda machines, with little real credibility in the free thinking world. They would never let facts get in the way of their agenda.

[Boston]

interesting that data from such an esteemed and well established international consortium of sciences like the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) is questioned by deniers who fail again and again to present any corroborating data or a singe salient point supporting there wild claims and

who then come right back and want to present unreviewed and unpublished op ed pieces concerning oil and gas industry's PR outlet the "Heartland Institute" ( which is actually nothing more than a tin shed warehousing three or four energy company funded employees and a few pallets of disinformation literature).

a group who is legendary for there defense of the tobacco industry and for being on the take from the big oil and dirty coal

what will the deniers stoop to next
there are no limits

[alanrockwood]

Here is my theory... not science, but more economic and sociological.

I think the management and technical people of most of the fossil fuel producers know that they are on the losing side of the global warming issue. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists dropped its opposition to the global warming consensus in 2007, the last scientific society of national or international stature to oppose the consensus view.

However, the fossil energy industry also realizes that they don't have to win the scientific argument. All they (and their friends) have to do is wage fighting retreat using a variety of techniques, some of which you can see on this thread. If they can delay any action to regulate their industry for a few years, or better yet from their point of view, delay for a few decades, they can still make billions (maybe trillions) of dollars by extracting their products from the earth and selling them to consumers.

In the meantime, the smart companies will do what part of the tobacco industry has done. They will use the time they are buying via their delaying tactics ("buying" in a quite literal sense) to diversify their industry, so when their ability to sell their main product starts to dwindle they will still be able to continue as major industrial powers through their diversified lines of business. The less smart companies will fail to diversify, but it's OK for them too because they will have made plenty of money in the meantime.

Now, this is just a theory of course, and I don't have much direct evidence to back it up, but I will bet there is a lot of truth in it.

[mark775]

"Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers" Now, I went a year to this sham of a university...bear with my tangent...public universities are, as a rule, a joke - imagine being in an industry that needs government to subsidize it! In itself, this is an admission that it is an unneeded commodity. Couple this fact with tenure, the bane of education, the self-propagating liberal agenda pervasive in nearly all education (remember, those that can, do, etc...), and the fact that this university is the third-rate, retarded sibling of much more prestigeous UW, and you can close the doors of this hairy-armpitted Huxley, goat-farming shithole http://www.wwu.edu/huxley/index.shtml and nobody but video arcade and bar owners in B-ham shud care. That said, this guy has the kind of credential you people appreciate whether reported by Fox News or not.
[Fox has] "little real credibility in the free thinking world." - "The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN." -Bill Carter, the Times. Brent Swain, need I remind you that you are a Canadian? There is no thinking allowed. Get back to drinking whiskey and shooting road signs...oh, you're a progressive...Get back to sponging off of the loggers and farmers and planning your next trip across the border for decent health care and an Indian casino visit.
Wood, you fit in nicely; "I don't have much direct evidence to back it up." Preface everything you say with that. Read it quick - my last three have been deleted.

[alanrockwood]

Wood, you fit in nicely; "I don't have much direct evidence to back it up." Preface everything you say with that. Read it quick - my last three have been deleted.

That's the difference between me an some of the climate change deniers that post here. When I post something that is just my opinion I say so outright. When they post something that is just their opinion they expect us to accept it as proven fact.

[Marco1]

Here is my theory... Not science, but more economic and sociological.

I think the management and technical people of most of the fossil fuel producers know that they are on the losing side of the global warming issue. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists dropped its opposition to the global warming consensus in 2007, the last scientific society of national or international stature to oppose the consensus view.

However, the fossil energy industry also realizes that they don't have to win the scientific argument. All they (and their friends) have to do is wage fighting retreat using a variety of techniques, some of which you can see on this thread. If they can delay any action to regulate their industry for a few years, or better yet from their point of view, delay for a few decades, they can still make billions (maybe trillions) of dollars by extracting their products from the earth and selling them to consumers.

In the meantime, the smart companies will do what part of the tobacco industry has done. They will use the time they are buying via their delaying tactics ("buying" in a quite literal sense) to diversify their industry, so when their ability to sell their main product starts to dwindle they will still be able to continue as major industrial powers through their diversified lines of business. The less smart companies will fail to diversify, but it's OK for them too because they will have made plenty of money in the meantime.

Now, this is just a theory of course, and I don't have much direct evidence to back it up, but I will bet there is a lot of truth in it.

Dear Alan...your hypothesis, can not float not even in the dead sea.
Do you really think that the opposition to man made global warming hypothesis comes from fossil fuel suppliers because they think their market is going to shrink? Why then haven't they waged a war against nuclear? There is a real threat to coal!

Think again, how much of petroleum goes into fuel that can be replaced by "alternative energy" Can you see container ships driven by batteries?, what about passenger planes powered by pedals? Diesel locomotive with a sail?

Think rationally, this is not a battle against alternative sources of energy. Far from it. It has been said at nauseam by all the different lunatic green groups that a new cheap source of energy would be disastrous to the planet. This is a battle against humankind, those that drive this CO2 nonsense, also declare human as a plague that needs to be culled and hope that no one will ever find a way to produce H2 or other sources of cheap fuel because that would drive the plague (humans) to intolerable (to them) numbers.

The big fuel corporation have a secure market for all the time the resource last and beyond, particularly coal, the cleanest and more abundant source of energy on the planet.
The technology that will replace fossil fuel is not solar nor wind nor any of the toy-like ******** that is been peddled and subsidised at great cost and no gain whatsoever.

Eventually a good cheap technology will be invented and if so, it will be the greens who will try to bury it and not the fuel producers just like it was done with nuclear.
In the meantime, the smart companies will do what part of the tobacco industry has done. They will use the time they are buying via their delaying tactics ("buying" in a quite literal sense) to diversify their industry, so when their ability to sell their main product starts to dwindle they will still be able to continue as major industrial powers through their diversified lines of business. The less smart companies will fail to diversify, but it's OK for them too because they will have made plenty of money in the meantime.

I would like to mention that the above paragraph deserves special attention.
Clearly you adhere to the mantra that money is dirty and that whoever makes money deserves punishment, or rather that rich is evil and poor is virtuous.
When not surprising, this anti-value is common currency among liberals, greens and assorted sub-employed pretend self sustained hobby goat farmers, who nurture in adulthood the attitudes a 12 year old has against his parents.

It is interesting to note that in our Australian Labour government, we have the dubious privilege to be keeping a collection of ministers and members of parliament who, all ex government or union employees that collectively, don't have more than 10 years of working in a business, or as independent professionals, or in a board of directors or any other activity that has any resemblance with real life.
Their tirades are sickening and their decisions life threatening. It is little surprise that they also share that point of view that rich be it personal or corporate is bad and must be punished, whilst poor incompetent or fool must be upheld and subsidied.

[Sheepy]

30 years ago when I was a kid apparently the oceans, by now would have risen several metres and the small town I lived in would be completely submerged according to the "experts". The beaches there are still at the same level now as then.

[troy2000]

30 years ago when I was a kid apparently the oceans, by now would have risen several metres and the small town I lived in would be completely submerged according to the "experts". The beaches there are still at the same level now as then.

Baloney. Name the experts who said such a thing thirty years ago. I was an adult at the time, and can't think of any.

You may be confusing the occasional hyped magazine or newspaper article for actual scientific research....

[troy2000]

Dear Alan...your hypothesis, can not float not even in the dead sea.
Do you really think that the opposition to man made global warming hypothesis comes from fossil fuel suppliers because they think their market is going to shrink? Why then haven't they waged a war against nuclear? There is a real threat to coal!

Think again, how much of petroleum goes into fuel that can be replaced by "alternative energy" Can you see container ships driven by batteries?, what about passenger planes powered by pedals? Diesel locomotive with a sail?

Think rationally, this is not a battle against alternative sources of energy. Far from it. It has been said at nauseam by all the different lunatic green groups that a new cheap source of energy would be disastrous to the planet. This is a battle against humankind, those that drive this CO2 nonsense, also declare human as a plague that needs to be culled and hope that no one will ever find a way to produce H2 or other sources of cheap fuel because that would drive the plague (humans) to intolerable (to them) numbers.

The big fuel corporation have a secure market for all the time the resource last and beyond, particularly coal, the cleanest and more abundant source of energy on the planet.
The technology that will replace fossil fuel is not solar nor wind nor any of the toy-like ******** that is been peddled and subsidised at great cost and no gain whatsoever.

Eventually a good cheap technology will be invented and if so, it will be the greens who will try to bury it and not the fuel producers just like it was done with nuclear.


I would like to mention that the above paragraph deserves special attention.
Clearly you adhere to the mantra that money is dirty and that whoever makes money deserves punishment, or rather that rich is evil and poor is virtuous.
When not surprising, this anti-value is common currency among liberals, greens and assorted sub-employed pretend self sustained hobby goat farmers, who nurture in adulthood the attitudes a 12 year old has against his parents.

It is interesting to note that in our Australian Labour government, we have the dubious privilege to be keeping a collection of ministers and members of parliament who, all ex government or union employees that collectively, don't have more than 10 years of working in a business, or as independent professionals, or in a board of directors or any other activity that has any resemblance with real life.
Their tirades are sickening and their decisions life threatening. It is little surprise that they also share that point of view that rich be it personal or corporate is bad and must be punished, whilst poor incompetent or fool must be upheld and subsidied.

No, Marco. Money is not dirty in itself. But money collected for dirty science is dirty.

Explain why the same 'scientific' non-profits who used to publish pseudo-scientific studies and opinion pieces denying that smoking is unhealthy are now cranking out papers denying that global warming is real. Like the Heartland Institute, for example.

[troy2000]

That's the difference between me an some of the climate change deniers that post here. When I post something that is just my opinion I say so outright. When they post something that is just their opinion they expect us to accept it as proven fact.

Mark is a special case Alan, even among this elite group of ignorant ideologues. He's the undisputed master of cheap shots. You should be honored that he considered you worthy of his attention....

[fasteddy106]

When I read the reference to FOX News I knew you wack jobs of the AGW KoolAid Club would go ballistic. Easy prediction as the left hasn't stopped foaming at the mouth since they lost their monopoly on news organizations. The source is pretty irrelevent though and you guys know it. Is what was reported relevent? That's what counts. Troy, you Boston and the rest of you philosophical misfits and elitists who still believe that the AGW hypothesis is valid(or maybe you don't but are bound by liberal dogma) are the ones taking a beating. Boston still thinks he can combine two pieces of fiction and it will become a fact. He doesn't see the difference between posting altered, edited and fraudulent data in order to win a riposte and actually proving a theory.

I don't know if what the good professor of 150 peer reviewed studies proposed is true. But I didn't see any rebuttal of the science, just ad hominem attacks, ******** and the usual patronizing insults from the AGW supporters.

[hoytedow]

Well there you go, Fox news. It must be true then.Truer than all them other lyin' propagandists for world socialism.

[hoytedow]

I cant help but notice that as the level and detail of data and professionalism has gone up on the side of science the level of comprehension and quality of data sources has gone down on the deniers side.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, there simply is no coherent and comprehensive counter theory to that of Rapid Global Climate Shift
therefor the deniers simply resort to picking around the edges of the many branches of science that make up the theory and in the end, show nothing of any substantial error within the theory

I would like to invite any of our silent readers to ask any question they might have and see who provides the more detailed and accurate response wither pro or con.

cheers
B"Don't cast pearls before swine..." No point in having the pearls trampled, so now I am slinging slop.

[hoytedow]

Fox news and CNN are a right wing propaganda machines, with little real credibility in the free thinking world. They would never let facts get in the way of their agenda.If you think CNN is a right wing propaganda machine, then there is little hope for you. Fox is fair and balanced, with both left and right wing opinion being aired. Your remarks lack any transverse framing. Your logic has fallen victim to origami. :D

[hoytedow]

interesting that data from such an esteemed and well established international consortium of sciences like the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) is questioned by deniers who fail again and again to present any corroborating data or a singe salient point supporting there wild claims and

who then come right back and want to present unreviewed and unpublished op ed pieces concerning oil and gas industry's PR outlet the "Heartland Institute" ( which is actually nothing more than a tin shed warehousing three or four energy company funded employees and a few pallets of disinformation literature).

a group who is legendary for there defense of the tobacco industry and for being on the take from the big oil and dirty coal

what will the deniers stoop to next
there are no limitsWhy do you think our ancestors left Europe? Precisely because their thinking was all wrong.

[hoytedow]

30 years ago when I was a kid apparently the oceans, by now would have risen several metres and the small town I lived in would be completely submerged according to the "experts". The beaches there are still at the same level now as then.This pretty well sums it up. All that propaganda was scare tactic to frighten a whole generation of kids over the edge into the arms of the socialist movement. Everybody wake up!

[alanrockwood]

Dear Alan...
Do you really think that the opposition to man made global warming hypothesis comes from fossil fuel suppliers because they think their market is going to shrink? ...

Yes, it is a fact that fossil fuel suppliers have been funding an anti-global warming crusade. That has been well documented, including, if I recall correctly, several times in this thread. It is not even in much dispute why they would want to spend company money to do so.

The only thing that is uncertain is whether they are doing so in full knowledge that they are on the wrong side of the science, or if they really believe their own propaganda and the pseudo-science (and rare bit of real science that agrees with them) that they are funding.

[mark775]

And they colluded with Dick Cheney and big auto to buy and bury the 100MPH carburetor...

[troy2000]

Why do you think our ancestors left Europe? Precisely because their thinking was all wrong.

Huh? You were replying to Boston, but your answer is a complete non sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything he said.
And they colluded with Dick Cheney and big auto to buy and bury the 100MPH carburetor...
Another complete non sequitur.

[WickedGood]

Help plant Ferns to improve our environment!

Why Ferns?


Trees and forests and Ferns are a crucial part of the Earth's ecosystem. They are green machines that clean our air and water by absorbing pollutants and stabilizing soils.

What is the interest in Ferns?

There is a lot of people who would love to Plant a Tree to help with the environment but cannot due to the space and cost of trees. We offer the Fern as a viable alternative. Your Donation no matter how small can help to plant a fern. We will plant and nurture a fern in your name for Only $10 each. You can of course donate as much as you wish and have the peace of knowing that multiple ferns are growing and You helped to make it happen.

What is our goal?

WickedGoodOutdoors has a goal to reduce the CO2 impact .One of the ways will be to plant Ferns each year to help offset the CO2 impact.

Ferns will be planted in a Coastal Maine location where they flourish in the cool damp environment helping to enrich our world by diminishing Co2 gasses.

Donate Now

Send your donation to

WickedGoodOutdoors
P.O. Box 1585
Saco, Maine 04072
WickedGoodOutdoors@maine.rr.com

[hoytedow]

Baloney. Name the experts who said such a thing thirty years ago. I was an adult at the time, and can't think of any.

You may be confusing the occasional hyped magazine or newspaper article for actual scientific research....I was an adult 40 years ago and the only changes to our coastline were reshaping done by hurricanes. Same beach. Same height above sea-level. My iced-tea never overflowed when the ice melted, either, even when it was filled to the top.

[hoytedow]

And they colluded with Dick Cheney and big auto to buy and bury the 100MPH carburetor...And WARP drives.:P

[troy2000]

I was an adult 40 years ago and the only changes to our coastline were reshaping done by hurricanes. Same beach. Same height above sea-level. My iced-tea never overflowed when the ice melted, either, even when it was filled to the top.

What's your point? Can you name any of the 'experts' he's talking about?
30 years ago when I was a kid apparently the oceans, by now would have risen several metres and the small town I lived in would be completely submerged according to the "experts".
No, you can't--because there were no experts thirty years ago saying such a thing. So you're making irrelevant noise instead, as usual.

You guys need to pick the story you want and stick to it. The last time I checked, you were claiming that thirty and forty years ago the 'experts' said there was an ice age coming, not a melting of the ice that would inundate the coastlines. Which bs story are you going with, Hoyt?

[hoytedow]

Just because I can't remember their friggin' names doesn't mean those self-appointed experts didn't say it. Can you remember every detail of the last year, much less the last forty?

[Boston]

fourty years ago I was a all about scuba diving and marine biology, the word at the time was ecosystem destruction not Rapid Global Climate Shift.

If you want a synopsis of what the general thinking was from that time go read Rachel Carlsons silent spring and then come back and talk about her predictions

my theory is if you want to argue something ( even if its only to distract from something else you tried to argue and turns out you knew nothing about ) then go brush up on it "before" you start spouting off random claims that you then can not support

kinda makes for a more interesting conversation if you ask me

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

Yeah, Rachel C was all the rage when I was in college. It was malarky then too, but it almost sucked me in. Then I saw who did the ranting and figured out what the agenda was.

[DrCraze]

Damn all those with an agenda to clean up our oceans and air? You sound like a disgruntled teen that has been told to keep their room clean. Do you pour your used motor oil down the drain too?

[hoytedow]

And I was going to add you to my buddies list. Bummer.

[DrCraze]

I don't play well with others:p

[fasteddy106]

Quote by Boston......................




who then come right back and want to present unreviewed and unpublished op ed pieces concerning oil and gas industry's PR outlet the "Heartland Institute" ( which is actually nothing more than a tin shed warehousing three or four energy company funded employees and a few pallets of disinformation literature).


You got anything like photos or stuff to back up that tin shed remarK?????

[fasteddy106]

Damn all those with an agenda to clean up our oceans and air? You sound like a disgruntled teen that has been told to keep their room clean. Do you pour your used motor oil down the drain too?


Don't be trite, we have Boston and Troy for that. Simply because we don't buy into the absurd claims, junk science and social engineering scams of the AGW movement doesn't mean we are in favor of pollutionl.

[fasteddy106]

Seems more and more of our Canadian friends are starting to ask questions also....................



http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3298

[hoytedow]

Thank God for that.

[fasteddy106]

fourty years ago I was a all about scuba diving and marine biology, the word at the time was ecosystem destruction not Rapid Global Climate Shift.

If you want a synopsis of what the general thinking was from that time go read Rachel Carlsons silent spring and then come back and talk about her predictions

my theory is if you want to argue something ( even if its only to distract from something else you tried to argue and turns out you knew nothing about ) then go brush up on it "before" you start spouting off random claims that you then can not support

kinda makes for a more interesting conversation if you ask me

cheers
B


Good advice Boston, you ought to try it yourself instead of playing shell games with graphs, studies, and data.

[fasteddy106]

Here is the truth about the Heartland Institute, a bit different than portrayed by Boston.

http://www.heartland.org/about/truthsquad.html


If you go to Google Earth, and type in 19 South Lasalle St, Chicago, you will find a big ass office building instead of a tin shed. The Heartland Institute has a full time staff of 35 and academic associates across the country in some of our countrys leading universities. If you actually visit the groups web site you will find it to be far more substantial than the misinformation Boston has once again posted here.

Once again, Boston is proven a fraud.

[Jimbo1490]

The information in this link is more relevant.

http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc102/Section5.pdf

Figure 5.7 of that link gives the solubility of CaCO3 as a function of -log(pCO2), where pCO2 is the partial pressure of CO2 expressed in atmospheres. Currently pCO2 is 0.00038 atmospheres, so -log(pCO2) has a value of 3.4. At this value of pCO2 the solubility of CaCO3 is essentially constant as a function of pCO2. Eventually, as CO2 increases still further then the solubility of CaCO3 decreases. This occurs at about -log(pCO2)=-1.

However, let's continue to look at the region around -log(pCO2) 3.4. Notice that as pCO2 increases the concentration of Calcium ion also increases. Where does that Calcium come from? Unlike CO2 it can't come from thin air. It comes from Calcium carbonate. This means that calcium carbonate must dissolve in order to supply the increasing calcium ion concentration.

By the way, I apologize for not including the figure in this post. I was not able to cut and paste it from the document.

Here's some that's even MORE relevant from Tom Segalstad. This presentation has bee posted in its entirety several times to the thread in the last year, but most warmers cannot be bothered to stain their spotless minds with the works of 'deniers'; I hope you can be more open minded, Alan.

I have not had much time to devote to internet 'play' in the last few days as business is picking up, so I'm getting home late and out early the next day.

43496

43497

43498

43499

43500

Jimbo

[troy2000]

Here is the truth about the Heartland Institute, a bit different than portrayed by Boston.

http://www.heartland.org/about/truthsquad.html


If you go to Google Earth, and type in 19 South Lasalle St, Chicago, you will find a big ass office building instead of a tin shed. The Heartland Institute has a full time staff of 35 and academic associates across the country in some of our countrys leading universities. If you actually visit the groups web site you will find it to be far more substantial than the misinformation Boston has once again posted here.

Once again, Boston is proven a fraud.

You're joking, right? You actually went to the Heartland Institute's own web page to find out the 'truth' about them? :p

I'm sorry. The truth, which is documented almost everywhere but on their own site, is that they used to shill for the tobacco industry and now they shill for the oil industry.

Oil companies have contributed substantially to the Heartland Institute. ExxonMobil contributed a total of $560,000 between 1998 and 2005. This included $119,000 in 2005, ExxonMobil's largest gift to Heartland in that period. Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for climate change projects. Greenpeace research showed that the Heartland Institute had received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.

During the time that the Heartland Institute was contesting the health risks of secondhand smoke, it received significant funding from Philip Morris.


Here's a classic example of their intellectual dishonesty:

In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares,”[ included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion in the list, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!"

The Institute refused to do so.

It's hard to believe you're actually trying to portray this gaggle of prostitutes as serious scientists. They do no significant research of their own; their output basically consists of propaganda and 'opinion pieces' for whatever cause they happen to be pushing.

And I don't know why you're so impressed by their address. Boston may have exaggerated, but 19 South Lasalle is simply a commercial office building, that sublets to anyone who can pay the rent. The Heartland Institute leases a suite there... just like a divorce lawyer, the Bank of India, the Burrito Beach taco chain and a whole lot of other people do.

[troy2000]

Another little bit of info for people who actually believe the Heartland Institute is a scientific organization. Here's their current mission statement:

"Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

A previous version, up until 2006, included the phrase, "...devoted to turning ideas into social movements that empower people". Their 2008 Annual Report says their primary target is "the nation’s 8,300 state and national elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials."

Simply put, folks, they aren't a scientific research organization; they're a political and social advocacy group. In other words, they're a bunch of friggen lobbyists. Why do you insist on quoting them like they're some sort of objective source for scientific facts?

[DrCraze]

There's no reaching them Troy. It is a far easier to pretend like we are doing no harm, hence the retaliatory behavior when anyone comes with evidence of our virus like behavior on this planet and destroys their precious delusion. You will find this within any neo fascist conservative group.

[alanrockwood]

Here's some that's even MORE relevant from Tom Segalstad. This presentation has bee posted in its entirety several times to the thread in the last year, but most warmers cannot be bothered to stain their spotless minds with the works of 'deniers'; I hope you can be more open minded, Alan.

I have not had much time to devote to internet 'play' in the last few days as business is picking up, so I'm getting home late and out early the next day.

43496

43497

43498

43499

43500

Jimbo

Jimbo,

There is nothing in the figures you posted that supports your contention that increasing the CO2 in the ocean will lead to precipitation of additional calcium carbonate. (Remember, this is the topic under discussion in this sub-thread.)

I will make a few comments on various figures you posted.

The first figure is on acidification of the ocean. This is no doubt an interesting topic, but since it is not what is under consideration in this sub-thread (which is whether adding CO2 to the ocean will lead to precipitation of CaCO3), it is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. About the only thing that is relevant to the discussion is that it is pretty much consistent with my earlier comment that -log(pCO2)=~3.4.

The second figure is a very short piece on carbonate buffers. The chemical equation that the author posted is

CO2(g) + H2O + Ca++ --> CaCO3 +2H+

It is a correctly balanced equation for part of the carbonate system. However, standing alone it is an incomplete description of the system because the system is far more complex than what is included in this equation. In particular, the author does not include processes that involve bicarbonate (HCO3-). This is no small issue because under oceanic conditions with -log(pCO2)=~3.4 the bicarbonate concentration is quite a bit higher than the carbonate concentration. Estimating the numbers from figures 5.6 and 5.7 of http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc102/Section5.pdf the bicarbonate concentration is something like 10X higher than the carbonate concentration. Therefore, bicarbonate dominates, and ignoring processes involving bicarbonate will lead to highly distorted conclusions. Figures 5.6 and 5.7 just referred to give a more complete picture of the carbonate system because it includes all the relevant species. (However, see comments later about silicates and aluminum containing species.)

The next figure is titled "ocean carbonate system" The labeling on the graphs is too small for me to read, so I can't comment on it. However, I will comment on the text caption. If I may paraphrase, it basically says that under normal oceanic conditions increasing the partial pressure of CO2 will not cause calcium carbonate to dissolve. This statement is an oversimplification. Whether one regards the statement as true or not depends on one's threshold for considering small numbers to be significant. The fact is, increasing the CO2 level causes a small amount of CaCO3 to dissolve. This is evident in figures 5.6 and 5.7 where the bicarbonate concentration is increasing with increasing CO2. This can only come from the dissolution of CaCO3, along with the reaction with H2CO3 (essentially the CO2 level). The relative increase in HCO3- is steep, but the total bicarbonate is still rather low (though still 10X higher than the carbonate concentration), so the amount of calcium carbonate that dissolves is rather low, at least until the CO2 level increases to somewhat higher levels, at which point the CaCO3 starts to dissolve faster. Thus, if one equates a small amount of CaCO3 dissolution with zero dissolution then the calcium carbonate does not dissolve with increasing CO2, at least not until the CO2 level gets much higher. However, if one equates a small amount of dissolution of CaCO3 with a non-zero amount of dissolution then one would say that CaCO3 is dissolving when the CO2 partial pressure increases. The second position is, in fact, strictly true, though the first position can be considered "almost true" for some purposes. Note that nowhere in the figure caption is there anything to support your contention that increasing the CO2 partial pressure will increase produce an increasing amount of CaCO3 precipitation.

The next figure is entitled "More ocean buffers". This figure discusses buffers involving silicates and and some aluminum containing species. This is interesting, but less relevant than you might think. The figure points out that these species produce a very high buffering capacity. For the sake of discussion let us assume this is true. The problem is that the term "buffering capacity" refers to stabilization of pH, not stabilization of aqueous CO2 concentration. Furthermore, the author of this figure makes no comment on how all this would relate to dissolution or precipitation of CaCO3. The second of these equations would lead to precipitation of CaCO3 with increasing CO2. However, one cannot make this make that conclusion in this particular case because the ocean is a far more complicated system than this because this reaction is coupled to several others involving CO2, HCO3- and CO3--. To make any conclusions about dissolution or precipitation of CaCO3 one would need to solve for all the coupled processes and not consider this one process.

The last figure is from Principles of Geochemistry, third edition, by Brian Mason, dated 1967, about 43 years ago. You quote a statement from the book indicating that the ocean is in equilibrium with respect to most elements. The other quote indicates that the oceans control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The key thing about these quotes is that they say nothing about the subject of the sub-thread we were discussing, which is the effect of CO2 on precipitation or dissolution of CaCO3. Therefore, they are entirely irrelevant to the present discussion. Perhaps you could start another sub discussion and put the figure in that sub discussion, a discussion for which the figure would be relevant to the topic.

[alanrockwood]

Just because I can't remember their friggin' names doesn't mean those self-appointed experts didn't say it...

Baloney! You were simply making up numbers about alleged 30 year old predictions that the sea level would rise several meters by now and then fraudulently (or if not fraudulently, then carelessly) attributing the predictions to the "experts".

[troy2000]

Baloney! You were simply making up numbers about alleged 30 year old predictions that the sea level would rise several meters by now and then fraudulently (or if not fraudulently, then carelessly) attributing the predictions to the "experts".

In the interests of accuracy and fairness, Alan, I'd like to point out that it was Sheepy (whoever the heck he is) who made the original claim.

Hoyt just noisily and fraudulently (or carelessly) agreed with him.....;)

[troy2000]

There's no reaching them Troy. It is a far easier to pretend like we are doing no harm, hence the retaliatory behavior when anyone comes with evidence of our virus like behavior on this planet and destroys their precious delusion. You will find this within any neo fascist conservative group.

Well, I tend to be pretty careful about throwing around terms like neo-fascist. I think you can be pretty conservative without being one, just as very few liberals qualify as communists.

But concerning the Heartland Institute, I am getting tired of hearing their press releases and bogus papers quoted as the last word in genuine science. Like I said, they're a lobbying group--not a scientific foundation.

Here's a quick rundown of the agenda they've been pushing lately. You'll notice that a lot of it has little or nothing to do with science.

1. Opposition to any government regulations or action regarding global warming/climate change/AGW.

2. Acceptance of genetically engineered crops and products.

3. Privatization of government-supplied public services.

4. School vouchers, to allow parents to send their children to private schools using taxpayer funds.

5. Deregulation of health care insurance companies.

[alanrockwood]

In the interests of accuracy and fairness, Alan, I'd like to point out that it was Sheepy (whoever the heck he is) who made the original claim.

Hoyt just noisily and fraudulently (or carelessly) agreed with him.....;)

I stand corrected on the source of the original claim. Therefore, my direct criticism applies to Sheepy instead of Hoyt, though I think that to the extent that Hoyt takes the same line then at least some of the criticism rubs off on him as well.

[hoytedow]

fourty years ago I was a all about scuba diving and marine biology, the word at the time was ecosystem destruction not Rapid Global Climate Shift.

If you want a synopsis of what the general thinking was from that time go read Rachel Carlsons silent spring and then come back and talk about her predictions

my theory is if you want to argue something ( even if its only to distract from something else you tried to argue and turns out you knew nothing about ) then go brush up on it "before" you start spouting off random claims that you then can not support

kinda makes for a more interesting conversation if you ask me

cheers
B"Rapid Global Climate Shift" my #$$. It was the onset of the new ice age.

Well spun, though.

[hoytedow]

There's no reaching them Troy. It is a far easier to pretend like we are doing no harm, hence the retaliatory behavior when anyone comes with evidence of our virus like behavior on this planet and destroys their precious delusion. You will find this within any neo fascist conservative group.You guys have been pretending you are doing no harm for decades. You didn't fool us though. Unfortunately, you are still leading the sheeple to their doom.

You are half-right. Our present government is neo-fascist but it is not conserving anything; especially our constitution, borders, national sovereignty, language, borders or culture.

[hoytedow]

I stand corrected on the source of the original claim. Therefore, my direct criticism applies to Sheepy instead of Hoyt, though I think that to the extent that Hoyt takes the same line then at least some of the criticism rubs off on him as well.I agree with Sheepy on this issue 100% so cast your stones 'cause I don't give a flyin' flip either way. You will be (have been already) proven wrong. The whole world will know it and you know it.

[fasteddy106]

Well, I tend to be pretty careful about throwing around terms like neo-fascist. I think you can be pretty conservative without being one, just as very few liberals qualify as communists.

But concerning the Heartland Institute, I am getting tired of hearing their press releases and bogus papers quoted as the last word in genuine science. Like I said, they're a lobbying group--not a scientific foundation.

Here's a quick rundown of the agenda they've been pushing lately. You'll notice that a lot of it has little or nothing to do with science.

1. Opposition to any government regulations or action regarding global warming/climate change/AGW.

2. Acceptance of genetically engineered crops and products.

3. Privatization of government-supplied public services.

4. School vouchers, to allow parents to send their children to private schools using taxpayer funds.

5. Deregulation of health care insurance companies.


Sounds like an organization liberals love to hate. They don't pass themselves off as a scientific organization, that's just your mistaken(again) interpretation. They are a free market think tank. That you don't agree is your opinion, but once again, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

[fasteddy106]

There's no reaching them Troy. It is a far easier to pretend like we are doing no harm, hence the retaliatory behavior when anyone comes with evidence of our virus like behavior on this planet and destroys their precious delusion. You will find this within any neo fascist conservative group.

Spoken like a true hater of mankind. But you left out racist homophobe. If you are going to be left wing demagogue get it right. The only delusions out there are in the minds of those that entertain the notion that the puny alleged mitigation scenarios would actually have an impact on a climate issue of dubious heritage and are not simply a method of imposing a social engineering agenda on a inattentive populace.

[DrCraze]

Well, I tend to be pretty careful about throwing around terms like neo-fascist. I think you can be pretty conservative without being one, just as very few liberals qualify as communists.

But concerning the Heartland Institute, I am getting tired of hearing their press releases and bogus papers quoted as the last word in genuine science. Like I said, they're a lobbying group--not a scientific foundation.

Here's a quick rundown of the agenda they've been pushing lately. You'll notice that a lot of it has little or nothing to do with science.

1. Opposition to any government regulations or action regarding global warming/climate change/AGW.

2. Acceptance of genetically engineered crops and products.

3. Privatization of government-supplied public services.

4. School vouchers, to allow parents to send their children to private schools using taxpayer funds.

5. Deregulation of health care insurance companies.

That part about GMO's makes them sound like lobbyist for monsanto. Probably the most powerful entity in the world. They have effectively monopolized the seed market around the entire world. He who controls the food controls the world.

[DrCraze]

Spoken like a true hater of mankind. But you left out racist homophobe. If you are going to be left wing demagogue get it right. The only delusions out there are in the minds of those that entertain the notion that the puny alleged mitigation scenarios would actually have an impact on a climate issue of dubious heritage and are not simply a method of imposing a social engineering agenda on a inattentive populace.

So I hate mankind because I feel empathy for mother earth? Maybe I simply choose not participate in modern man's megalomania.

I have found the only way to reach mother earth haters is to speak to them down on their level. Do not mention the environment at anytime, only speak of saving jobs or creating jobs. And let them know If they do it this way they can get those gosh darn greenies off their back. Dont ya know:p

[troy2000]

That part about GMO's makes them sound like lobbyist for monsanto. Probably the most powerful entity in the world. They have effectively monopolized the seed market around the entire world. He who controls the food controls the world.

Well, they're definitely pro-big business. Look at who they defend: health insurance companies, tobacco companies, oil companies, Monsanto, etc. And look at their drivel about "free-market" solutions."

[Boston]

`actually I did not exaggerate at all, There is a picture posted in this thread somewhere of the tin shed I am speaking of and its got the two founders of the so called institute ( which has no students by the way ) where they warehoused and had there offices, If they recieved enough money from the oil and gas industry to move into an office building somewhere its news to me

given enough time I will eventually find that picture again however a significant component of that effort is the direct relationship between the amount of time I spend digging it up for you and whether it would make any difference at all in your believing the lies spread by the so called institute

once again it kinda looks like the deniers are asking that things that have been shown before be shown again, over and over

its another sad ploy to waist valuable time with one denier rather than educating hundreds of curious people
specially in the face of the BP handling of the gulf crisis ( lies lies and more lies )

[troy2000]

Sounds like an organization liberals love to hate. They don't pass themselves off as a scientific organization, that's just your mistaken(again) interpretation. They are a free market think tank. That you don't agree is your opinion, but once again, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.

I didn't say they pass themselves off as a scientific organization; I pointed out that climate change deniers habitually quote them as though they're some sort of scientific authority on global warming.

You yourself were just carrying on about the Heartland Institute "...having academic associates across the country in some of our country's leading universities," as though it gives their propaganda some sort of scientific sheen.

Eddy, that's as bad as people quoting Al Gore as scientific proof for their position...

[alanrockwood]

I agree with Sheepy on this issue 100% so cast your stones 'cause I don't give a flyin' flip either way. You will be (have been already) proven wrong. The whole world will know it and you know it.

Sheepy said that 30 years ago the "experts" predicted that sea level would rise several meters by now. Based on your comment above you agree with Sheepy 100%. Therefore, you also agree that the experts predicted that sea level would rise several meters by now. Since the "experts" made no such claim then you, along with Sheepy, are guilty of fraudulent (or at the very least grossly false and negligent) attribution of a position which the experts never took.

[hoytedow]

Baloney! You were simply making up numbers about alleged 30 year old predictions that the sea level would rise several meters by now and then fraudulently (or if not fraudulently, then carelessly) attributing the predictions to the "experts".If I said they said it, they said it. If you want to see a liar polish your screen and turn it off.

[hoytedow]

In the interests of accuracy and fairness, Alan, I'd like to point out that it was Sheepy (whoever the heck he is) who made the original claim.

Hoyt just noisily and fraudulently (or carelessly) agreed with him.....;)Troy it is with genuine brotherly love that I invite you to kiss my onager.

[Marco1]

Sheepy said that 30 years ago the "experts" predicted that sea level would rise several meters by now....etc etc ....are guilty of fraudulent (or at the very least grossly false and negligent) attribution of a position which the experts never took.

Alan, I find your reaction on this matter uncalled for.

In the last 50 years there have been predictions and claims about weather, rainfall, temperatures, sea levels volcanic activity, tornados, aliens, life on mars, of all possible descriptions. Predictions of any kind including sea level rising can be found if you have the inclination to look for them, in newspaper archives.
Those making the predictions invariably anoint themselves to the level of experts, just like the modern day alarmist declare to be experts. Of course most likely neither are experts at nothing else but jumping on the bandwagon of public need of some hysterical quest and try to make something of it.

Your reaction and posts on this matter are childish, unnecessary and unproductive even to your cherished yet misguided quest.

I suggest you use some humour or other forms of more socialy acceptable methods to engage with others who happen to disagree with your opinions or choice of sources.

http://www.funnyandjokes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/shark-global-warming.jpg

[Marco1]

No, Marco. Money is not dirty in itself. But money collected for dirty science is dirty.

Explain why the same 'scientific' non-profits who used to publish pseudo-scientific studies and opinion pieces denying that smoking is unhealthy are now cranking out papers denying that global warming is real. Like the Heartland Institute, for example.

Actually Troy, when I could probably come up with a longer list than yours on institutions individuals governments and universities who have committed fraud and misused public funds to the tune of 100 times over or may be 1000 times over what the realist camp has done, you have missed my point.

I noticed in Alan's posts (he called his opinion), that the fact that a business is making money from selling fuel, automatically makes that business dirty corrupt and undesirable. It is this sort of unrealistic mentality that fuels the global warming alarmist. Coal is bad, Oil is bad, darling where is the key to the car? Have you switched the heating on? it's cold....

Our newspapers run stories of ****** picketing coal mining companies or trying to stop a new coal mine to open, and in the same sentence they say they will stop XYZ number of tons of CO2 to be pumped in the atmosphere.
Any person of average intelligence knows that CO2 ( let's just accept for a second that this is actually harmful) is directly proportional to the use of energy and not to the mining of fuel. And before anyone gets any ideas to organise a picket in front of an electricity generator, think again. If you switch off the grid, CO2 drops, so it is not the BAD oil companies, not the BAD coal companies but us the consumer should change habits, sell the car and the TV, disconnect from the grid, live in a cave and eat raw vegetables. Stopping a coal mine from opening, only shifts the revenue from selling coal to generate energy to a chinese company or a russian one.

Demonising successful companies and stating that they make billions or trillions of dollars as if the only mention of those figures is enough for everyone to nod gravely and instantly agree that such is a synonym of corruption and deceit, is just so childish I would have to write anther 5 paragraph extra just to describe it properly.

The root of making such instant connection between millions = evil is very common and the subject of many studies into human values and beliefs. I happen to have some interest in such studies and tend to recognise the symptoms easier than most.

[Marco1]

No, Marco. Money is not dirty in itself. But money collected for dirty science is dirty.

Explain why the same 'scientific' non-profits who used to publish pseudo-scientific studies and opinion pieces denying that smoking is unhealthy are now cranking out papers denying that global warming is real. Like the Heartland Institute, for example.

Actually Troy, when I could probably come up with a longer list than yours on institutions individuals governments and universities who have committed fraud and misused public funds to the tune of 100 times over of may be 1000 times over what the realist camp has done, you have missed my point.

I noticed in Alan's posts (he called his opinion), that the fact that a business is making money from selling fuel, automatically makes that business dirty corrupt and undesirable. It is this sort of unrealistic mentality that fuels the global warming alarmist. Coal is bad, Oil is bad, darling where is the key to the car? Have you switched the heating on? it's cold....

The comparison with tobacco industries when handy in your case, it is not accurate. Electricity or fuel is not an addictive drug, but a necessity just like food or clothes. There is nothing stopping researchers from finding new sources of energy but technology challenges themselves. The alternative sources of energy that we found a long time ago, that is nuclear, is not progressing because the greens are stopping it not the oil/coal companies. An I dare to say that the enthusiasm at solar and wind and bio fuel and the rest of the ******** comes not from their alleged cleanliness but from their miserable mediocrity and inefficiencies. Oh yes, greens love the fool and the mediocre, lets all live on a hobby farm, make our own straw hats and fertilise the tomato with the baby's diapers....and for goodness sake don't make any money ever. There is social security for that, paid by those BAD companies who actually pay taxes.

Our newspapers run stories of ****** picketing coal mining companies or trying to stop a new coal mine to open, and in the same sentence they say they will stop XYZ number of tons of CO2 to be pumped in the atmosphere.
Any person of average intelligence knows that CO2 ( let's just accept for a second that this is actually harmful) is directly proportional to the use of energy and not to the mining of fuel. And before anyone gets any ideas to organise a picket in front of an electricity generator, think again. If you switch off the grid, CO2 drops, so it is not the BAD oil companies, not the BAD coal companies but us the consumer should change habits, sell the car and the TV, disconnect from the grid, live in a cave and eat raw vegetables.

Demonising successful companies and stating that they make billions or trillions of dollars as if the only mention of those figures is enough for everyone to nod gravely and instantly agree that such is a synonym of corruption and deceit, is just so childish I would have to write anther 5 paragraph extra just to describe it properly.

The root of making such instant connection between millions = evil is very common and the subject of many studies into human values and beliefs. I happen to have some interest in such studies and tend to recognise the symptoms easier than most.

[troy2000]

Actually Troy, when I could probably come up with a longer list than yours on institutions individuals governments and universities who have committed fraud and misused public funds to the tune of 100 times over of may be 1000 times over what the realist camp has done, you have missed my point. 'And thou'rt another' is but a poor defense for a knave.

Marco, the fact that others may also have done something wrong doesn't make it right.
I noticed in Alan's posts (he called his opinion), that the fact that a business is making money from selling fuel, automatically makes that business dirty corrupt and undesirable. It is this sort of unrealistic mentality that fuels the global warming alarmist. Coal is bad, Oil is bad, darling where is the key to the car? Have you switched the heating on? it's cold....You somehow managed to 'notice' something that isn't there. Alan did not say that making money from selling fuel automatically makes a business dirty, corrupt and undesirable.

The comparison with tobacco industries when handy in your case, it is not accurate. Electricity or fuel is not an addictive drug, but a necessity just like food or clothes.I didn't compare the products of the tobacco industry with the products of energy industries. I compared their disengenuous actions in the arena of public opinion, against scientific evidence they consider a danger to profits. Both industries hired the Heartland Institute (and others like them, such as the Oregon Institute) to deliberately mislead government officials, politicians and the general public.There is nothing stopping researchers from finding new sources of energy but technology challenges themselves. The alternative sources of energy that we found a long time ago, that is nuclear, is not progressing because the greens are stopping it not the oil/coal companies. An I dare to say that the enthusiasm at solar and wind and bio fuel and the rest of the ******** comes not from their alleged cleanliness but from their miserable mediocrity and inefficiencies. Oh yes, greens love the fool and the mediocre, lets all live on a hobby farm, make our own straw hats and fertilise the tomato with the baby's diapers....and for goodness sake don't make any money ever. There is social security for that, paid by those BAD companies who actually pay taxes.Standard rant; needs no response.

Our newspapers run stories of ****** picketing coal mining companies or trying to stop a new coal mine to open, and in the same sentence they say they will stop XYZ number of tons of CO2 to be pumped in the atmosphere.
Any person of average intelligence knows that CO2 ( let's just accept for a second that this is actually harmful) is directly proportional to the use of energy and not to the mining of fuel. And before anyone gets any ideas to organise a picket in front of an electricity generator, think again. If you switch off the grid, CO2 drops, so it is not the BAD oil companies, not the BAD coal companies but us the consumer should change habits, sell the car and the TV, disconnect from the grid, live in a cave and eat raw vegetables.You're attacking a straw man. No one here has suggested we shut off the grid and go live in a cave. And we have an infinite range of possible actions between doing that, or doing nothing at all.

Demonising successful companies and stating that they make billions or trillions of dollars as if the only mention of those figures is enough for everyone to nod gravely and instantly agree that such is a synonym of corruption and deceit, is just so childish I would have to write anther 5 paragraph extra just to describe it properly.

The root of making such instant connection between millions = evil is very common and the subject of many studies into human values and beliefs. I happen to have some interest in such studies and tend to recognise the symptoms easier than most.

Another generic rant, attacking yet another straw man. No one here has said that simply making a profit proves a company is corrupt and deceitful.

But making a profit doesn't prove a company is pure, upright and favored by God, either.

[troy2000]

Alan, I find your reaction on this matter uncalled for.

In the last 50 years there have been predictions and claims about weather, rainfall, temperatures, sea levels volcanic activity, tornados, aliens, life on mars, of all possible descriptions. Predictions of any kind including sea level rising can be found if you have the inclination to look for them, in newspaper archives.
Those making the predictions invariably anoint themselves to the level of experts, just like the modern day alarmist declare to be experts. Of course most likely neither are experts at nothing else but jumping on the bandwagon of public need of some hysterical quest and try to make something of it.

Your reaction and posts on this matter are childish, unnecessary and unproductive even to your cherished yet misguided quest.

I suggest you use some humour or other forms of more socialy acceptable methods to engage with others who happen to disagree with your opinions or choice of sources.



Do you understand the difference between a recognized expert, and a self-proclaimed expert?

Despite what Sheepy claims, thirty years ago no generally recognized experts were predicting the sea would rise several meters and inundate the coastlines. Such nonsense may have popped up in newspapers and popular magazines, just like the claims of an impending ice age did. But sensational journalism is hardly the same thing as expert prediction.

Sheepy obviously pulled that one straight out of his butt; I'm not sure why you and Hoyt are defending it so strenously. Particularly since the last time I checked, you were both claiming the experts had been predicting an ice age instead. Ice ages don't flood the coast....

[troy2000]

Troy it is with genuine brotherly love that I invite you to kiss my onager.
Sorry, Hoyt. I only kiss cute ones.

[Marco1]

Do you understand the difference between a recognized expert, and a self-proclaimed expert?


Oh come on Troy, tell me who has the most self proclaimed experts? I think that the warming camp has such an army of self proclaimed experts that it dwarfs any other possible group put together, by millions.

However I put forward one debatable point that you did not take up.
Lets assume for the sake of the argument that Man made CO2 is actually harmfull and that we must do something about it.

There are a lot of people who think so and that "we must do something"
However the "we" is always someone else. Usually the bad oil/coal industry, the government, the mining giants etc. but the only people who are directly responsible for man made CO2 emissions are the consumers, that is me and you.
Yet all you hear is the demonisation of fuel and energy producers and no one actually switching off anything at all. If you listen to the greens, it is all the others that must switch off, and possibly die as well so that they can enjoy a scarce populated planet and crank up the air conditioning without feeling guilty.

See, despite knowing for a fact that there is no harm in man made CO2 in the foreseeable future, I have actually installed a solar hot water heater and a 2.5 KW/H electricity system on my roof.

Why you say? Simple business sense. I had to replace my hot water system anyway at a cost of $1000. I opted to get a solar hot water heater at the cost of $4500, that after several state and federal government rebates (all perfectly genuine mind you) came to cost me $1000. My hot water electricity bill has now gone from $50 a quarter down to zero. Do I need to save $50 a quarter? Not for a minute yet at no extra cost, I have done the logical thing. My exercise has cost the government $3500 plus loss of $50 a quarter to the power company. Made the manufacturer richer and done nothing at all for the environment after you take the energy used to produce the whole shebang.

Electricity solar panels. Our (smart labour) government has announced an Emission Trading Scheme (no it is not a choice to bottle our own farts) but does not have the numbers to pass it yet the electricity company who are not idiots, have increased the cost of power supply by 22% in one go and announced 60% increase in the next 2 to 3 years to compensate for the devastating effect of an ETS. They probably had a 5 minutes board meeting and said unanimously NOW OR NEVER, IDIOTS LIKE THIS GOVERNMENT WILL COME ONLY ONCE IN 100 YEARS.

When the ETS did not eventuate and was abandoned, they said they reduced the predictions to 40%. Can you imagine anyone on this planet getting away with that, short of Cuba Haiti or Zimbabwe? No right?
Well they did because no one stopped them. The dearer the electricity the better you see, less CO2! The fact that business use electricity too seems to be too far fetched for them.

So the government has come up with the following hair brained idea. THEY will pay us 62 cent per kilowatt and buy ALL we can produce via a special meter they supply free of charge.... and bill us for what we use at $18 cent. Furthermore THEY will subsidise the installation of panels at a cost of $15,000 each and I have to pay $4000. Of course the cost of the system is barely $5000 all up but the subsidies have tripled the price straight away.
So I now have a panel, courtesy of Mr Kevin Rudd that gets me $2000 a year back from my $3000 electricity bill and will be paid off in two years from my side and I have a 7 years contract to get me some nice earnings.
Do I need that money?
No,
Have I done anything for the environment?
No. I have made the solar panels company rich, got the government into a very large debt and done absolutely nothing for the environment since this panels have a relatively short life and need replacing at a once again large energy cost. The only reason I got it is because I think it is unjust I have to subsidise the one that have panels by paying inflated prices.

This "schemes" exist only because governments around the world know they collect votes for re-election from those dumb enough to believe this is the solution to our fossil fuel problems. Not that they don't know that the current easy solution particularly for us who have the largest reserves of Uranium in the world is nuclear. We also have vast reserves of natural gas yet we choose to sell it to China for a fraction of the price we would get if we pump it into our own cars and give the middle east the finger.

Not all is what appears to be.

Anyway it does not matter what you or me think, this is the downside of democracy. Mayority rules.
Did you try to make the ricotta cake?

[alanrockwood]

If I said they said it, they said it. If you want to see a liar polish your screen and turn it off.

But Hoyt, the problem is they DIDN'T say it.

[troy2000]

Oh come on Troy, tell me who has the most self proclaimed experts? I think that the warming camp has such an army of self proclaimed experts that it dwarfs any other possible group put together, by millions.

However I put forward one debatable point that you did not take up.
Lets assume for the sake of the argument that Man made CO2 is actually harmfull and that we must do something about it.

There are a lot of people who think so and that "we must do something"
However the "we" is always someone else. Usually the bad oil/coal industry, the government, the mining giants etc. but the only people who are directly responsible for man made CO2 emissions are the consumers, that is me and you.
Yet all you hear is the demonisation of fuel and energy producers and no one actually switching off anything at all. If you listen to the greens, it is all the others that must switch off, and possibly die as well so that they can enjoy a scarce populated planet and crank up the air conditioning without feeling guilty.

See, despite knowing for a fact that there is no harm in man made CO2 in the foreseeable future, I have actually installed a solar hot water heater and a 2.5 KW/H electricity system on my roof.

Why you say? Simple business sense. I had to replace my hot water system anyway at a cost of $1000. I opted to get a solar hot water heater at the cost of $4500, that after several state and federal government rebates (all perfectly genuine mind you) came to cost me $1000. My hot water electricity bill has now gone from $50 a quarter down to zero. Do I need to save $50 a quarter? Not for a minute yet at no extra cost, I have done the logical thing. My exercise has cost the government $3500 plus loss of $50 a quarter to the power company. Made the manufacturer richer and done nothing at all for the environment after you take the energy used to produce the whole shebang.

Electricity solar panels. Our (smart labour) government has announced an Emission Trading Scheme (no it is not a choice to bottle our own farts) but does not have the numbers to pass it yet the electricity company who are not idiots, have increased the cost of power supply by 22% in one go and announced 60% increase in the next 2 to 3 years to compensate for the devastating effect of an ETS. They probably had a 5 minutes board meeting and said unanimously NOW OR NEVER, IDIOTS LIKE THIS GOVERNMENT WILL COME ONLY ONCE IN 100 YEARS.

When the ETS did not eventuate and was abandoned, they said they reduced the predictions to 40%. Can you imagine anyone on this planet getting away with that, short of Cuba Haiti or Zimbabwe? No right?
Well they did because no one stopped them. The dearer the electricity the better you see, less CO2! The fact that business use electricity too seems to be too far fetched for them.

So the government has come up with the following hair brained idea. THEY will pay us 62 cent per kilowatt and buy ALL we can produce via a special meter they supply free of charge.... and bill us for what we use at $18 cent. Furthermore THEY will subsidise the installation of panels at a cost of $15,000 each and I have to pay $4000. Of course the cost of the system is barely $5000 all up but the subsidies have tripled the price straight away.
So I now have a panel, courtesy of Mr Kevin Rudd that gets me $2000 a year back from my $3000 electricity bill and will be paid off in two years from my side and I have a 7 years contract to get me some nice earnings.
Do I need that money?
No,
Have I done anything for the environment?
No. I have made the solar panels company rich, got the government into a very large debt and done absolutely nothing for the environment since this panels have a relatively short life and need replacing at a once again large energy cost. The only reason I got it is because I think it is unjust I have to subsidise the one that have panels by paying inflated prices.

This "schemes" exist only because governments around the world know they collect votes for re-election from those dumb enough to believe this is the solution to our fossil fuel problems. Not that they don't know that the current easy solution particularly for us who have the largest reserves of Uranium in the world is nuclear. We also have vast reserves of natural gas yet we choose to sell it to China for a fraction of the price we would get if we pump it into our own cars and give the middle east the finger.

Not all is what appears to be.

Anyway it does not matter what you or me think, this is the downside of democracy. Mayority rules.
Did you try to make the ricotta cake?

No, I haven't had a chance to make a ricotta cake yet.

[alanrockwood]

Alan, I find your reaction on this matter uncalled for....

Your reaction and posts on this matter are childish, unnecessary and unproductive even to your cherished yet misguided quest...
http://www.funnyandjokes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/shark-global-warming.jpg

Aux contraire mon frere.

Sheepy and Hoyt made wild and unsupported statements about what the "experts" predicted. It is perfectly reasonable to challenge them on their bogus claims.

I don't doubt that you may find my challenge to unsupported comments unacceptable, but this just means that you don't really care if people on your side of the issue make false and/or unsupported and/or unsupportable statements. Or to put it another way, it seems that you prefer made up propaganda to reasoned discussion based on supportable information.

[Marco1]

Aux contraire mon frere.

Sheepy and Hoyt made wild and unsupported statements about what the "experts" predicted. etc etc

If you are interested in a very good Chicken curry called "Balti Chicken" please let me know.

[alanrockwood]

An interesting fact: Denmark has managed to become a net exporter of energy. They used to depend primarily on imported oil. They have broken that dependence. Now they produce some oil. However, much of their energy independence is derived from other energy sources. They have done this while maintaining one of the highest standards of living in the world.

This provides a real life example of a country that achieved energy independence, and did so in part by renewable energy and other alternatives to fossil fuels.

I am not suggesting that we simply follow Denmark's lead in all this. There are a number of things they have done which I would not want to see done in the US, such as exorbitant taxes on automobiles. However, I still think there are things that the Danes have done that we could look at and learn from, such as their advanced use of wind power.

[alanrockwood]

If you are interested in a very good Chicken curry called "Balti Chicken" please let me know.

Yes I am interested in the chicken dish.

[mark775]

Troy has been in the thesaurus again..."non sequitur". I know you get to read a lot on union valve monitor duty but Troy doesn't read - he trolls.
The leftist lot of you need learn what the word "fascist" means - it is never anything to do with the right. Why progressives throw this word out there so much is beyond me, unless they just get tired of their usual volley of "Dittohead", "Teabagger", "redneck" and "racist". If I could, in my life, drive one thing into the thick, bone heads of leftists, it would be that "fascists" are progressives. The only thing "right" about fascism is that it implies will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. I contend that the only reason that leftists are considered pussies and not associated with war is that they have always been in the woman's camp - when they get a little power, and when "modern women" are not always what we used to think of as women,

43556

look at what they do!

43557

http://www.netrootsnation.org/

43558

****, watch your wallet - he already got Troy's hat!

The face of Fascism - what's "right" about that?

[mark775]

More fascism.

http://bigjournalism.com/acary/2010/05/21/d-c-metro-police-escorted-seiu-protesters-to-greg-baers-home/

Police escort busloads of these pieces of sh to a man's home? Why are the police doing this? Who gave the order - did it come from Barack or direct from the top, Andy Stern?

This will be viewed positively by the failing media. What if the Teapartiers did anything REMOTELY this vile?

[troy2000]

Troy has been in the thesaurus again..."non sequitur". I know you get to read a lot on union valve monitor duty but Troy doesn't read - he trolls.
The leftist lot of you need learn what the word "fascist" means - it is never anything to do with the right. Why progressives throw this word out there so much is beyond me, unless they just get tired of their usual volley of "Dittohead", "Teabagger", "redneck" and "racist". If I could, in my life, drive one thing into the thick, bone heads of leftists, it would be that "fascists" are progressives. The only thing "right" about fascism is that it implies will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. I contend that the only reason that leftists are considered pussies and not associated with war is that they have always been in the woman's camp - when they get a little power, and when "modern women" are not always what we used to think of as women,

43556

look at what they do!

43557

http://www.netrootsnation.org/

43558

****, watch your wallet - he already got Troy's hat!

The face of Fascism - what's "right" about that?

I'm a reasonably literate man, Mark, and I'm comfortable with my use of language. I don't own a thesaurus.

Whether you use one or not, I don't know. But I'm sure you don't read dictionaries or history books. Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to conflate liberalism and fascism.

It looks to me like climate change is just one more excuse for you to spout your ignorant, neanderthal political views, and your resentment of anyone who might be be better than you in any way. Apparently you can't measure up, or you wouldn't be so desperately trying to drag everyone else down.

Tell me, Mark: how many posts has it been since you actually said anything intelligent about climate change in this thread... instead of just verbally abusing people, and frothing at the mouth about unions, liberals, California, Vietnam draftees, welfare, people with genuine educations and degrees, or other subjects having nothing to do with climate change?

[Angélique]

Right Mark,

If you can't win with arguments then call your opponents fascists. Way to go boy..!! Sure Hoyt agree with those silly insults as he has often made them himself. 'Nice' way of hiding your lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. Have another glas (or bottle) of vinegar and write me a response please, sure you will do it in that order :D

Bye bye kid.

Cheers!
Angel

PS - Sorry :p, I'm off-line for a few days from now so can't respond your greetings (and won't go back to them) :P :P

[Boston]

the "debate" must be over if the deniers have been reduced to random tirades and a complete lack of scientific evidence to back up there claims as well as fraudulently listing scientists they say support the oil and gas PR campaigns when if fact they are screaming to have there names taken off the list

29 April 08
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts - about the Heartland Institute?
Tags: 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts, Dennis Avery, Heartland Institute, Hudson Institute, News We made, Richard Littlemore, US

UPDATE: we have received notes now from 45 outraged scientists whose names appear on the list of 500. We've published more quotes here.

Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.

DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.

This is a brief taste of some of the responses that have been copied to the DeSmogBlog so

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University



I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford



Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"

Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University


I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."

Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

The DeSmogBlog will follow up with additional postings of scientist reaction as it comes in.

If you liked this story, please help us get the message out and vote for it on Digg.com by clicking here.

And if you REALLY liked this story, please consider helping us out with our research by sending along a small (or large) donation.

interesting also is the fact that heartland refused to remove the names from there list
http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23207
In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list.

several dozen links to the fraudulent nature of the heartland institute can be found here

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-heartland-institute/

[fasteddy106]

`actually I did not exaggerate at all, There is a picture posted in this thread somewhere of the tin shed I am speaking of and its got the two founders of the so called institute ( which has no students by the way ) where they warehoused and had there offices, If they recieved enough money from the oil and gas industry to move into an office building somewhere its news to me

given enough time I will eventually find that picture again however a significant component of that effort is the direct relationship between the amount of time I spend digging it up for you and whether it would make any difference at all in your believing the lies spread by the so called institute

once again it kinda looks like the deniers are asking that things that have been shown before be shown again, over and over

its another sad ploy to waist valuable time with one denier rather than educating hundreds of curious people
specially in the face of the BP handling of the gulf crisis ( lies lies and more lies )

Nice try, you said a tin shed with pallets inside, why can't you admit you were wrong, and you vastly overestimate your influence on anyone. If you took the time to do even a tiny bit of research like Troy did you would have found that only about of a quarter of their financing comes from corporations and that they do no contracted research. Once again you are using ad hominem but irrelevent attacks to deflect from your own lazines. If you find the picture you refer to it only proves that you are again willing to use deception as a tactic as the picture is long out of date. You make unsubstantiated claims about lies that Heartland "spreads" while you defend a lie made by yourself, priceless, but typical. This alleged ploy was simply done to show what a phoney and a fraud you are and how you confuse winning a point in a debate with the reality that there is no climate crisis. The only time that is wasted here is reading the drivel and misinformation you post along with the deliberately deceptive graphs that you alter.

[troy2000]

Nice try, you said a tin shed with pallets inside, why can't you admit you were wrong, and you vastly overestimate your influence on anyone.

You're quibbling about details, and completely sidestepping the point: which is that the Heartland Institute is a front organization for corporations--a lobbying organization disguised as a non-profit "Institute"--and that people keep quoting them as though they're some unimpeachable source of scientific research and information.

[fasteddy106]

About the 500 letter complaint........

DeSmogBlog, a Web site created to attack conservative and free-market nonprofit organizations, targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland’s Web site [ http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21971 ] of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism. The blog persuaded some of the scientists appearing in the lists to ask that their names be removed from the lists.

In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”

Aside from those headlines, none of the articles and news releases produced by The Heartland Institute or the Hudson Institute (the original source of the lists) claims that all of the scientists who appear in the lists currently doubt that the modern warming is man-made. In fact, The Hudson Institute’s news release [ http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21970 ] says, “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”

We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists.

We suspect this change will not satisfy the bloggers or the disgruntled scientists. Why? DeSmogBlog’s motivation is plain enough: It was created and is funded solely to demonize groups like The Heartland Institute. They are doing what they are paid to do.

What motivates the scientists? They have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree. Their names probably appear in hundreds or thousands of bibliographies accompanying other articles or in books with which they disagree. Do they plan to sue hundreds or thousands of their colleagues? The proper response is to engage in scholarly debate, not demand imperiously that the other side redact its publications.

Many of the complaining scientists have crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy. They lend their credibility to politicians and advocacy groups who call for higher taxes and more government regulations to “save the world” from catastrophic warming ... and not coincidentally, to fund more climate research. They are embarrassed -- as they should be -- to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.

Why did DeSmogBlog and the disgruntled scientists wait seven months to express their displeasure? Maybe its because a new and expanded list [ http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22968 ] was released by the Hudson Institute on March 3. Heartland reported it in the May issue of Environment and Climate News in an article titled “Hundreds More Scientists Acknowledge Natural 1,500-Year Climate Cycle.” [ http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23085 ] The number of peer-reviewed scientists who’ve recently found physical evidence of natural climate cycles now exceeds 700. No need to redact the title of any of those articles.

The point should be obvious: There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a crisis. For more evidence, including actual surveys of scientists (something the alarmists never cite because no survey has ever found a “consensus” in support of their claims), click on the “PolicyBot” button on Heartland’s Web site at http://www.heartland.org and choose “environment” and then “Climate: Consensus” from the menu.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Bast is president of The Heartland Institute, a 24-year-old national nonprofit research organization, and publisher of Environment & Climate News.

[fasteddy106]

A bit more on the same issue .....


Statement on List of 500 Authors
Climate Change > Consensus
Climate Change > Natural Cycles

Email a Friend
Written By: Dennis Avery
Publication date: 12/18/2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[British newspaper columnist George Monbiot, citing a book by James Hoggan titled Climate Cover-Up, recently claimed that a list of 500 scientists “whose research contradicts man-made global warming scares” published by The Heartland Institute misrepresented the views of those scientists. This is a false and defamatory accusation that Dennis Avery, the author of the list, and The Heartland Institute have already refuted several times. Here is a new statement by Dennis Avery addressing the matter again.]

Dennis Avery and Fred Singer read thousands of peer-reviewed studies on all aspects of global warming while preparing the manuscript of their New York Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming--Every 1,500 Years. These included studies of ice cores, seabed sediments, fossil pollen, ancient tree rings, drought cycles near the equator, the sunspot index, Lindzen’s study of the heat vent over the warm pool of the Pacific, museum paintings from the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, and many other subsets of climate knowledge.

After the book was published, to make this information more accessible to the public, we assembled the names of hundreds of these peer-reviewed authors and published them on our Web site. Most of the studies and authors had been cited in our book.

Fewer than a dozen of the authors complained, saying they did not agree with our position on climate change. That wasn’t the point. Once a paper has been published, it enters the public domain. Comments on it and about it and proceeding from it are supposed to be encouraged. As the CRU scientists have so recently been forced to admit, this is how science proceeds.

If a peer-reviewed author of a study on sunspots has never heard of the 1,500-year cycle, the findings in his paper that bear on the existence of the cycle are nonetheless open to public comment. Neither we nor any other researchers need the authors’ permission to discuss the findings, though our own statements will open us to condemnation if what we say is not valid or relevant.

As an example, the authors of a paper on how wildlife species are inhabiting a broader range of territory--rather than going extinct--during this globally warming period seems relevant to the discussion of whether global warming will drive more species extinct. A paper on how atmospheric ozone amplifies the variability of solar irradiation also seemed relevant.

We did not ask for those authors’ permission, nor do we seek their permission now.

We’ve explained to each of the dissenting authors why we felt their papers endorsed the 1,500-year cycle. We may even be mistaken in our analysis, though we don’t think so. But the purpose of publishing peer-reviewed papers is to test their validity and help other researchers apply the lessons they contain. We are part of the testing process. It should all be open, and transparent, and err on the side of being even more open and transparent.

It is particularly abhorrent to see The Guardian’s George Monbiot, who I know considers himself an important element in the global warming debate, attack The Heartland Institute and the Hudson Institute for pointing out how these papers impact our understanding of the long, moderate natural climate cycles.

It was not even two weeks ago that Mr. Monbiot was confessing he had not been an objective observer of the global warming evidence and would have been a better journalist if he had been more skeptical. His statement is still true.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis Avery, Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute


Again, Boston is incapable of anything but deception and misinformation.

[fasteddy106]

You're quibbling about details, and completely sidestepping the point: which is that the Heartland Institute is a front organization for corporations--a lobbying organization disguised as a non-profit "Institute"--and that people keep quoting them as though they're some unimpeachable source of scientific research and information.


The only quibbling going on here is your inability to deal with the truth after you have made groundless claims that you can't back up.


Q: Who funds The Heartland Institute?

A: The Heartland Institute is a publicly supported charity under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Its funding comes from tax-deductible contributions from approximately 2,700 individuals, foundations, and corporations.

Heartland does not solicit or accept grants from government agencies, does not conduct contract research, and it does not rely on direct mail to raise money. No corporate donor contributes more than 5 percent of its annual budget.

People contribute to The Heartland Institute because they share our belief that better information and understanding can improve public policies in such important areas as education, environmental protection, and health care. For more than two decades, Heartland authors have discovered and promoted free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

We do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors. We have, in fact, a long record of standing behind our research even when it means losing the support of major donors.

For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland’s corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead.

After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors for the following reasons:

•People who disagree with our views have taken to selectively disclosing names of donors who they think are unpopular in order to avoid addressing the merits of our positions. Listing our donors makes this unfair and misleading tactic possible. By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.

•We have procedures in place that protect our writers and editors from undue influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.

•We frequently take positions at odds with those of the individuals and companies who fund us, so it is unfair to them as well as to us to mention their funding when expressing our point of view.

•No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our budget, and most give far less than that. We have a diverse funding base that is too large to accurately summarize each time we issue a statement.


The above from the Heartland web site.

[troy2000]

The only quibbling going on here is your inability to deal with the truth after you have made groundless claims that you can't back up.


Q: Who funds The Heartland Institute?

A: The Heartland Institute is a publicly supported charity under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Its funding comes from tax-deductible contributions from approximately 2,700 individuals, foundations, and corporations.

Heartland does not solicit or accept grants from government agencies, does not conduct contract research, and it does not rely on direct mail to raise money. No corporate donor contributes more than 5 percent of its annual budget.

People contribute to The Heartland Institute because they share our belief that better information and understanding can improve public policies in such important areas as education, environmental protection, and health care. For more than two decades, Heartland authors have discovered and promoted free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

We do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors. We have, in fact, a long record of standing behind our research even when it means losing the support of major donors.

For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland’s corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead.

After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors for the following reasons:

•People who disagree with our views have taken to selectively disclosing names of donors who they think are unpopular in order to avoid addressing the merits of our positions. Listing our donors makes this unfair and misleading tactic possible. By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.

•We have procedures in place that protect our writers and editors from undue influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.

•We frequently take positions at odds with those of the individuals and companies who fund us, so it is unfair to them as well as to us to mention their funding when expressing our point of view.

•No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our budget, and most give far less than that. We have a diverse funding base that is too large to accurately summarize each time we issue a statement.


The above from the Heartland web site.

I can't believe it. You're going to the Heartland Institute's own website again, and quoting their shamelessly self-serving bs as some sort of proof of who and what they are?:p

Why don't you look at what they do, instead? What they do is shill for the causes of the people who give them major funding...whether it be Phillip Morris, Monsanto or ExxonMobile.

They even have personnel from major donors on their board of directors, which makes a complete mockery of their claims to be independent and objective. That includes people like Walter F. Buchholtz, Government Relations & Issues Advisor for ExxonMobil Corporation, and Ray E. Marden, Manager of Industry Affairs for Phillip Morris Corporation.

Following SourceWatch's documentation of Heartland's ties to the tobacco industry, the group wrote that Marden "helped convince others in the company to approve contributions to us because of our opposition to high taxes on cigarettes, the abuse of tort law leading up to the Master Settlement Agreement, and other tobacco-related issues. This was not a conflict of interest: All nonprofit organizations put representatives of foundations and corporations on their boards with the expectation that they help “give or get” financial support ..."

That's a quote directly from their own website too, by the way: http://www.heartland.org/about/truthsquad.html

So what do you mean, "groundless claims I can't back up?" What more do you need, Eddy? A written confession signed by their president, with photocopies on their website?

[alanrockwood]

Here is a list of organizations that oppose the consensus on climate change that have received significant donations from Exxon during the years 2000-2003. During just those few short years the total amounts to more than $8.6 million, and that is just from one donor.

Yes, there is not doubt that big energy interests have been mounting an anti-climate change crusade. Their donations to organizations opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change shows that clearly enough. The Heartland Institute is not even the largest recipient of the donations, at least not during the years 2000-2003.

It is, of course, their right to make such donations, but people should not close their eyes to the fact that it is occurring, or for what purpose.

[alanrockwood]

Here is a list of organizations that oppose the consensus on climate change that have received significant donations from Exxon during the years 2000-2003. During just those few short years the total amounts to more than $8.6 million, and that is just from one donor.

Yes, there is not doubt that big energy interests have been mounting an anti-climate change crusade. Their donations to organizations opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change shows that clearly enough. The Heartland Institute is not even the largest recipient of the donations, at least not during the years 2000-2003.

It is, of course, their right to make such donations, but people should not close their eyes to the fact that it is occurring, or for what purpose.

For some reason I can't get the file attached to my other post to display, so if you are having the same trouble you may have to download the file to look at the table.

[mark775]

"...since you actually said anything intelligent about climate change in this thread" - The topic was settled ages ago...except to the warmers too stupid to know it.

Angel, I did not start the "fascist" thing (it is not that powerful of a word, to me), as it is the domain of ignorant leftists in misuse. I WILL give you this; I have not taken the time to study GW to an extent that I can rebuke every grain of every inane talking point regurtitated by insolent, spoiled, naive, progressives. Now that we have a power grab taking place in this last bastion of freedom (America), it has become very serious to me and people like me. We used to be able to make fun of you or simply ignore you. I am sorry, but because of your success, because of the numbers of you, the power of your collective and the vengeance with which you wield your strength, I am forced to redouble and fortify my positions. I cannot accept you as an equal with which to banter. You, all of you (progressives), are the enemy and it will probably take more than my lifetime to forgive what you have done to the world and to my homeland.
Tho I cannot take the time to fully learn the mechanics of climate, I take solace in the knowledge that no one fully comprehends the enormity of nature's ability to not notice our efforts to tame her. Since I cannot control nature and I have chosen a path that does not include sponging off of others in any way (grants), I can better help my country overcome by starting damage control on the political front, agressively and, to an extent, proactively (Face it - if conservatives had fully attacked progressiveism when it reared it's ugly head during the Johnson administration, we would have been slapped down as McCarthyites. Now that we can see the outcome of Progressivism, e.g., industrious Germans bailing out four-hour-workday Greeks and the eventual collapse of the Euro and probably the Dollar, half will agree; "McCarthy was right", "We have to stop these bastards".). If it means making enemies, so be it. If it means fighting for my children's freedom, so be it. Don't take it personally...I hate what you stand for and am trying not to let it breach my shores.

[Boston]

Nice try, you said a tin shed with pallets inside, why can't you admit you were wrong, .


your grasping at minutia again, it proves that a quick search did not locate the picture I have already posted on this thread. Your arguments concerning the heartland institute show that they are fraudulently using the names of dedicated scientists claiming that they support there view even long after those scientists have come out and demanded that there named be removed from any of the spin being published by what is obviously a front group for the oil and gas as well as the tobacco companies.

I have to wonder if you have no stronger point of contention with the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift than to complain about a picture of a tin shed with a sign over the door, Frankly it would not surprise me at all if these clowns spent some of the millions they receive in dirty money to buy themselves a decent office.

tell you what
if come up with the picture do I get a written appology and will you then argue for the theory rather than against since this issue seems to be so high on your list of reasons to believe in it or not
or
if I retract my statement will you then retract any statements you have made that are not also accompanied by irrefutable evidence

( take your time on this important decision there Eddy cause if you recall I've made it clear that I have no issue whatsoever with learning through both my own errors and the errors of others

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c262/bostonpyramidbuilder/birdy.jpg


point being that nothing will convince you that your picking around the distant edges of the theory is a the best you can do to ignore the core of the science which is so overwhelming in its support of the theory that there is simply no debate.

best of luck with that and get back to me on your decision on how you would like to handle the lack of a picture of a tin shed :P :P :P

cheers
B

[alanrockwood]

...I have not taken the time to study GW to an extent that I can rebuke every grain of every inane talking point ...

That's clearly evident, no doubt about it whatsoever.

[mark775]

Still, I can follow Guillermo and Jimbo better than you, and it would not take a fortnight to get as versed in the important parts as anyone. I will start my rubbish burn today with a tire and diesel...in your honor.

[Boston]

That makes a frightening bit of sense Mark cause neither Jimbo or Guillermo understand the science either. Thats kinda the issue to isn't it, for folks who have little or no background in the earth sciences its difficult to understand the convergent sciences involved in the theory, which is why they devised the IPCC to collate the vast amount of data into something less daunting. Reality is though the closer you get to a real climate science degree the higher and higher the percentage of scientists who agree with the theory ( 97% to be precise )

[Guillermo]

I have very little time lately to follow this crazy thread, but it is always gratifying to realize from time to time the idiotice level of some members, like the case of Boston the Scientist, is in good health well alive and kicking.

All the best.

[mark775]

97%? Never heard that before.
I'll give you something too, Bos -When people get paid to gather numbers and suppositions to align with an agenda, there is likely a daunting pile of numbers and supposition, and it will likely align with that agenda.
An observation; Jimbo is likely like me but smarter and less aggressive and bothers for principle of the issue. Guillermo flat knows his stuff and seriously believes he can change minds to make a difference. The politics have to hurt him, as well, as his country is in the chain of dominoes and still spending money they don't have.
Troy feels his job is in granite and argues for fun. Some here are progressives and either believe whatever the controllers in their party tell them or just will not give in to conservatives, no matter what - "We have it within our reach! Finally, we are going to get the bike paths and fast rail, solar panels will replace oil, evil people won't be able to drive Ford Excursions, everyone will eat soy cakes, jihadists will love us, Kim Il will become sane, and no damn, red-neck, trailer trash old-school Nationalist is going to stop us!"
Boston, I believe you welcome the coming doom as some sort of payback for what the European part of our ancestry did to the native part of our ancestry. Economic collapse would be an amusing diversion to you and make you with your survival skills top dog.
My short reply is; "don't rag on Jim and Guillermo because of me. The whole thing is about politics, money and everyone's personal struggle with perceptions of right/wrong and nothing about the actual climate and any miniscule, fleeting effect we may have on it." Be careful or some bystanders will mistake you, because of you Mother Earth passion, for a progressive.
Please read this http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1822495/what_is_the_american_progressive_movement.html?cat=9, Bos, as an insight into why I hate the people in the Whitehouse, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, etc. and their drones. This guy's views so align with mine (at least by skimming, which is all I did), that I would not today be able to define "progressivism" without plagiarizing after reading this. Bos, that's not you, right?

[alanrockwood]

Still, I can follow Guillermo and Jimbo better than you, ...

OK Mark, fair enough.

Jimbo has frequently talked about the importance of oceans and CO2.

So, it's time now for a simple pop quiz on CO2/H2O/carbonate chemistry to test your understanding of this subject. This not advanced stuff, but only the simplest and most basic of concepts on this topic, and I won't even complicate it by the inclusion of calcium carbonate-related chemistry. It is not possible to even begin to understand the chemistry of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 without knowing the answers to the first two of the following three questions.

This is a closed book test. However, you will get half credit if you decide to make this an open book test. Ready? OK, you may begin now, but no cheating.

1) The CO2/H2O/carbonate system includes the following chemical species: carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), bicarbonate ion (HCO3-), carbonic acid (H2CO3), hydrogen ion (H+), and carbonate ion (CO3--). Your task is to write each of the several chemical equations for the step wise interconversion of one carbon-containing species to the other. (5 points)

2) The solubility of CO2 in water at a partial pressure of 1 atmosphere and a temperature of 15 Celsius is approximately 2 grams CO2 per kg H20. For a body of water in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 400 parts per million (molar basis), what will be the amount of CO2 (in grams) dissolved in a kilogram of the water? (5 points)

3) For extra credit, explain the relationship between thermodynamic activity and solute concentration. (This is an advanced topic, and you are not expected to know this material, so it is worth 10 points extra credit)

[mark775]

I am not a chemist and would likely ask a chemist friend, look it up or hire someone if I wanted to know. Can I give you a closed book test on the moral implications of shackling an economy to let others catch up? Hint; It's kinda like teaching to the lowest denominator in public school and dragging all down to that level. It is social justice - Is it right?
Short essay, 500 words, subjective grading. Impress me or answer with one word... "yes" or "no".

[alanrockwood]

I am not a chemist and would likely ask a chemist friend, look it up or hire someone if I wanted to know. Can I give you a closed book test on the moral implications of shackling an economy to let others catch up? Hint; It's kinda like teaching to the lowest denominator in public school and dragging all down to that level. It is social justice - Is it right?
Short essay, 500 words, subjective grading. Impress me or answer with one word... "yes" or "no".

Just as I thought. You don't know the first thing about the science behind global warming. Therefore, although you are free to have and opinion on the matter, it is not an informed opinion, and your comments on that particular topic can contribute nothing useful to the discussion.

As for your quiz, since it is not on the topic of the science of global warming it doesn't really belong on this thread. Would you care to start another thread on that topic?

[Boston]

hey G whats up
nice to see a slight jab and you are all over it
hope all is well
B

[Boston]

Mark there is no shackling of the economy necessary. If we were to remove the bribe riddled shyster politicians from orifice that seem to have a stranglehold on our country and replace them with decent hard working folks we could have this place back on track in no time.

we could be leading in the technologies of the future rather than struggling to keep afloat
were is that free market thinking of yours
in a truly free market we would have escaped our dependence on the oil and gas industry long ago just like a few other countries have. Who are doing quite nicely I might add as has been pointed out.
of course that wont be happening any time soon given the PR firms like the heartland institute that perpetuate a corrupt system

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

Sorry, Hoyt. I only kiss cute ones.My wife likes it.

[hoytedow]

But Hoyt, the problem is they DIDN'T say it.road apples

[hoytedow]

I'm a reasonably literate man, Mark, and I'm comfortable with my use of language. I don't own a thesaurus.

Whether you use one or not, I don't know. But I'm sure you don't read dictionaries or history books. Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to conflate liberalism and fascism.

It looks to me like climate change is just one more excuse for you to spout your ignorant, neanderthal political views, and your resentment of anyone who might be be better than you in any way. Apparently you can't measure up, or you wouldn't be so desperately trying to drag everyone else down.

Tell me, Mark: how many posts has it been since you actually said anything intelligent about climate change in this thread... instead of just verbally abusing people, and frothing at the mouth about unions, liberals, California, Vietnam draftees, welfare, people with genuine educations and degrees, or other subjects having nothing to do with climate change?When California stops being a hypocritical state and actually boycotts all things Arizona, you will be able to afford a thesaurus, but you will have to read it by candlelight.:D :P

[Boston]

funny thing is I can kinda appreciate where Arizona is coming from

http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/homelandsecurity1492.jpg

[Landlubber]

Boston,

Is that you second from the right.....

[hoytedow]

funny thing is I can kinda appreciate where Arizona is coming from

http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/homelandsecurity1492.jpgIt should say 982, to be accurate.

[mark775]

"...not on the topic of the science of global warming it doesn't really belong on this thread" - Just like a progressive to obfuscate when they are cornered. The thread title is "What do we think about climate change". If it were about science, it would be a topic reserved for you and "Overunity" Quark on one side and Jim and Guillermo on the other. You've got a strong suit, chemistry, and you would have me butt heads with you on that? I've got a strong suit, and it is "brake application". I told you that I am not willing to devote the fortnight-minus to learn the chemistry of this topic as the science is already complete. Why don't you argue the chemistry with, say, Fred Ebert http://www.koaradio.com/podcast/theprofessor.xml ? Go ahead and call his show and change his mind. I am here to apply the brakes on people like you - If I sometime fall behind and people who know say, "****, he's got a point", I'll get out a book. In the meantime, until there is science proving man causes GW, the topic is entirely about politics. I suggest that you, with a bit of a background in science, shud be offended by the non-science of AGW. At the very least, the politics surrounding the evolution of science into something that can be decided by consensus debases all supposed scientist's credibility and shud be of concern.
"Would (you) care to start another thread on (the) topic (of Global Warming Science)?"

Bos, would you refresh my memory of just what countries "escaped dependence on the oil and gas industry long ago?"

[mark775]

That is funny tho, Bos.

[Boston]

no Im not in that one
but the guy on the far right is Geronimo and I think this is the only picture of him

might be sitting bull but I'd have to go look it up

sooooooo
just out of curiosity what was I cornered on again cause I dont recall that part of the conversation

was it on the oceans that cant be responsible for the rising levels of co2 or was it on the glassiers that are all melting, the temps rising, co2 being shown through mas balance to be directly attributed to burning fossil fuels or might that have been that bit about temp driving vapor and not the other way around

kinda curious as to exactly what I was cornered on Mark

[mark775]

No, you just said that some countries had escaped their dependance on gas and oil. I would like us to duplicate that, if feasible. What countries and how did they do it?
There are many pics of Geronimo (him, in that pic). Must be Sitting Bull with not many. I like Quanah Parker (not in that pic, but oft photoed/never defeated)

[hoytedow]

More Geronimo:

[hoytedow]

No photos of Crazy Horse, but this sketch was made during an interview.:

[hoytedow]

Several photos of Sitting Bull exist. Here is one taken before the Dakota Territory was split north and south.:

[hoytedow]

Chief Joseph:

[hoytedow]

Billy Bowlegs:

[troy2000]

When California stops being a hypocritical state and actually boycotts all things Arizona, you will be able to afford a thesaurus, but you will have to read it by candlelight.:D :P

Why should we boycott Arizona for doing the right thing? And WTF does that have to do with climate change, scientifically or otherwise?

[troy2000]

I am not a chemist and would likely ask a chemist friend, look it up or hire someone if I wanted to know. Can I give you a closed book test on the moral implications of shackling an economy to let others catch up? Hint; It's kinda like teaching to the lowest denominator in public school and dragging all down to that level. It is social justice - Is it right?
Short essay, 500 words, subjective grading. Impress me or answer with one word... "yes" or "no".

You've noisily proclaiming that a scientific theory is false, when you know nothing at all about the actual science involved. And when you're confronted with the fact, you change the subject and start ranting about economics, instead.

My guess is that you know as little about economics as you do about science. And when that has been proven to everyone's satisfaction, you'll change the subject yet again. You'll start ranting about politics, instead.

You can't stop ignorance, folks; it always finds a way.

[troy2000]

More Geronimo:

Anyone who wonders why the Apaches wore leather leggings should try walking past some cholla cactus bare-legged....;)

[Boston]

or better yet a few prickly pears hidden in the grass

[mark775]

"science involved" - I know what scientific theory is and "consensus" is not part of it. My stupid diploma from an exclusive university is in finance, which is about three classes different than a diploma in economics, liberal arts, chemistry. It's a four year thing, and because of the dumbing down of our population so that nobody gets left behind, it's probably less than what our father's learned in middle school. I don't claim to be a genius - just that I have more sense than you people. I don't claim to be an expert in economics but I know right from wrong (and know it better than many who claim expertise) - consider me your own little Ronald Reagan but without the charisma (there's your key!). I deligate you to watch a valve, get paid excessively to do it and retire with full bennies at fifteen years on Cali largess (soon to be Fed). Your union is in a pickle - Barack needs the votes (as witnessed by the lavish display the other day to impress the illegal Mex (to be soon) voting block, yet your union feels a good union man is the only one that can watch a monitor and remember "righty-tighty". Union truckers vs. treaty with mexico allowing truckers, etc.. Some things are coming down soon! To be sure, for now, "sur-prise, sur-prise, Sarge" Mark and Troy agree on TWO things (illegals and I forget the other). "Golly!"

[mark775]

Quick - why a feather in the headband?

[troy2000]

"science involved" - I know what scientific theory is and "consensus" is not part of it. My stupid diploma from an exclusive university is in finance, which is about three classes different than a diploma in economics, liberal arts, chemistry. It's a four year thing, and because of the dumbing down of our population so that nobody gets left behind, it's probably less than what our father's learned in middle school. I don't claim to be a genius - just that I have more sense than you people. I don't claim to be an expert in economics but I know right from wrong (and know it better than many who claim expertise) - consider me your own little Ronald Reagan but without the charisma (there's your key!). I deligate you to watch a valve, get paid excessively to do it and retire with full bennies at fifteen years on Cali largess (soon to be Fed). Your union is in a pickle - Barack needs the votes (as witnessed by the lavish display the other day to impress the illegal Mex (to be soon) voting block, yet your union feels a good union man is the only one that can watch a monitor and remember "righty-tighty". Union truckers vs. treaty with mexico allowing truckers, etc.. Some things are coming down soon! To be sure, for now, "sur-prise, sur-prise, Sarge" Mark and Troy agree on TWO things (illegals and I forget the other). "Golly!"
You are obnoxious, aren't you? As usual, you're making unwarranted assumptions and taking cheap shots--just like you did when you assumed I was a draftee.

I'm a system operations specialist. That's a fancy term for an operating engineer, and believe me--there's more to it than watching that hypothetical valve you're so obsessed with. We have three compressor plants, two auxiliary equipment buildings, cooling towers, surge tanks, air receivers, containment ponds, meter runs, scrubbers...and yes, valves. Except during normal working hours, the operator is the only person on the premises. We're responsible for starting, stopping, adjusting and monitoring compressor units, generators, fin fans, water pumps, etc., scattered over 28 acres.

Describing my job as 'watching a valve' is about like describing a bus driver or trucker's job as sitting around all day. And why do you call my pay 'excessive' for making sure this station pulls and pushes up to 1.2 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas into California (instead of turning into a hole in the ground), since you have no idea what my pay is? The last time I checked my bank account, I wasn't a rich man yet.

I don't work for the State of California. I work for the nation's largest natural gas utility, and it's a division of Sempra Energy--a publicly traded corporation. If you ever get any money, you might look into it as an investment.

I'll have to work thirty five years to earn full retirement benefits, not fifteen. Our pension fund is completely self-funded, and doesn't have a dime of state or federal money in it.

Let's see: you've previously expressed your contempt for any sort of academic, scientist or other well-educated intellectual, as well as for public employees, officials and politicians. And now you're expressing the same utter contempt for blue-collar workers.

That's pretty much a clean sweep; looks to me like you have no respect for anyone at all. I'm betting you don't even like yourself much, or you wouldn't be so resentful of everyone else....

[Boston]

I have a friend who does basically the same thing here in Denver and that jobs no joke. Not sure I have much to say for the union but I can sure respect the talent and finesse it takes to keep natural gas flowing at an even pressure through the city. There are peak hours and off hours, spikes and incoming pressure variations, break downs and maintenance as well as picking up where the last shift left off and safety checks and tests.
I know that guy well enough to know he is no slouch and if he does what Im thinking Troy does its a dam hard job. One good screw up and a lot of folks could be in real trouble.

I think we can all at least agree that the basic hardworking guy of whatever nationality or flavor as long as he/she is legal deserves a break from these sell outs we call politicians these days. That tea party land slide is not about dem or republican, its about some positive change and high time for it.

I still say we hang em all by the ropes they imported from China
dem or republican

anyway I might add that it would be nice to sit and down a few pints one and all some day
regardless of the crap we argue about

my two cents
hell I'll even buy Jim a drink if he is the drinkin sort

anyway
back to arguing

sorry for the interuption
B

[alanrockwood]

road apples

Prove it. Put up or shut up.

[troy2000]

I have a friend who does basically the same thing here in Denver and that jobs no joke. Not sure I have much to say for the union but I can sure respect the talent and finesse it takes to keep natural gas flowing at an even pressure through the city. There are peak hours and off hours, spikes and incoming pressure variations, break downs and maintenance as well as picking up where the last shift left off and safety checks and tests.
I know that guy well enough to know he is no slouch and if he does what Im thinking Troy does its a dam hard job. One good screw up and a lot of folks could be in real trouble.

I think we can all at least agree that the basic hardworking guy of whatever nationality or flavor as long as he/she is legal deserves a break from these sell outs we call politicians these days. That tea party land slide is not about dem or republican, its about some positive change and high time for it.

I still say we hang em all by the ropes they imported from China
dem or republican

anyway I might add that it would be nice to sit and down a few pints one and all some day
regardless of the crap we argue about

my two cents
hell I'll even buy Jim a drink if he is the drinkin sort

anyway
back to arguing

sorry for the interuption
B

Sounds like your friend is in the distribution end of things, Boston. I'm in the transmission end. His job is to spread the gas out to the people who need it through a network; my job is to get it to him. You might envision high-pressure transmission pipelines as the freeways and highways of natural gas supply, and distribution systems as the city streets and local roads.

I used to be a pipeliner. But in the station I deal more with keeping the equipment running, to feed large, high-pressure gas lines (up to 36" dia and 850 lbs/sq in). I keep track of gas quality (to make sure there aren't dangerous levels of RSH in it, for example), and inject odorant if the levels fall. And I monitor pressures and valve stations, from the Colorado River across the desert past Palm Springs.

The operators with the really interesting jobs are the ones in our storage facilities. Those are old oil fields that we use as huge storage reservoirs, where they compress and inject the gas back into the ground under extremely high pressure--and retrieve it through wells when we need it, just like the original gas and oil were extracted.

[alanrockwood]

... My stupid diploma from an exclusive university is in finance, which is about three classes different than a diploma in economics, liberal arts, chemistry...

I rather doubt it Mark. My undergraduate university is not a particularly exclusive or elite school, and here is what they currently require for a BS in chemistry.

Chemistry (required): 52 semester hours
Other math and science (Required): 23 semester hours
Additional math and science (recommended but not required): 9 semester hours

By the way, when the program above specifies math, it is starting at calculus and going up from there. Lower level math classes (college algebra, trigonometry, etc.) are considered remedial and do not fill the requirement.

I highly doubt that your program in finance would have within a few classes of meeting the requirements for a BS in chemistry. (By the same token, a chemistry program is probably not within a few classes of meeting the requirements for a finance degree.) If I am wrong and your finance degree was within a few classes of meeting the requirements for a chemistry degree then your university, whether exclusive or not, deserves no respect for its academics. More likely its requirements for a chemistry degree are pretty close to those of the university where I got my BS.

[Boston]

hmm I guess we dont talk shop much when we hang out cause he and I both like fly fishing and there is not much talkin when we are on the river, or now that I think of it do we talk shop much at all in the car on the way to wherever either.

who knows but it sounded similar so I thought I'd mention it. Thing is its a talent if you ask me. Sorta like playing an instrument from the way he describes it when we do talk shop. Which fortunately is not often. Oh well my bet is both ends don't have room for sleeping at the switch.

I still want to hear Hoyts response to his being called out on these alleged predictions that went aerie.

my take is old Hoyt has a good sense of humor and a bad sense of science
its a lot like a balanced ecosystem :-)

oh well I dont actually care at this point and I'd still buy a round if the opportunity arose

[masrapido]

mark and BS in chemistry, together in the same sentence...?

Sounds like a fair assesment to me.

[masrapido]

{hoytedoy- road apples} Prove it. Put up or shut up.

He cannot. He knows only too well there's no such thing. The same goes for the no global warming theory.

[troy2000]

hmm I guess we dont talk shop much when we hang out cause he and I both like fly fishing and there is not much talkin when we are on the river, or now that I think of it do we talk shop much at all in the car on the way to wherever either.

who knows but it sounded similar so I thought I'd mention it. Thing is its a talent if you ask me. Sorta like playing an instrument from the way he describes it when we do talk shop. Which fortunately is not often. Oh well my bet is both ends don't have room for sleeping at the switch.

I still want to hear Hoyts response to his being called out on these alleged predictions that went aerie.

my take is old Hoyt has a good sense of humor and a bad sense of science

oh well I dont actually care at this point and I'd still buy a round if the opportunity arose

You're right about your friend's job; it's more of an art than it is a science. You have to have a 'feel' for it, kind of like riding the currents on a river. I'd say my job is more dangerous, because I'm face to face with the equipment and the pressures. But his is more complex.

Yeah, I'd buy Hoyt a round or two. And Jimbo, too. Mark? He could definitely pay for his own, and if he bought me one I wouldn't drink it.

[Boston]

nah
I pretty much take the whole internet thing with a grain of salt
some folks get a bit crazy with how they treat one another in this thing but its all just a function of hiding behind a keyboard rather than dealing with folks face to face.

I still get asked to help bounce at my favorite bar from time to time when they need a hand, and I can assure you, folks are a lot more polite when your in there face than when you have a bit of distance and they figure they have a running start. Reminds me of the internet sometimes, some folks are real brave at 100' down the road even after being all yes sir, no sir on the way to the door.

although it might be entertaining to get you guys in the same room and start feeding you drinks
ok my evil side

anyway ya I'll ask him for a tittle next time I see him and try and relay it to you
hell you might even know the guy as Im sure its all the same union and all

oh well
still waiting for Hoyt to come up with those failed predictions and by who

cheers
B

ps
I notice Sloweddy did not take me up on my offers to resolve that picture question
seemed reasonable to me that if we could agree to rescind all unsupported comments we might actually start getting somewhere on this thread
I suppose since a brief search did not produce that picture of the heartlands tin shack and since I cheerfully have no intention of wasting my time digging through 7000 posts that I'd be willing to retract that "one" if only the deniers would retract there innumerable statements that were made without viable support.
seems fair to me since such a big deal was made of it and since the deniers regularly fail to provide any supporting data for there claims
I think its nice that it gives us room for a compromise :D :D :D :D :D+

[hoytedow]

Why should we boycott Arizona for doing the right thing? And WTF does that have to do with climate change, scientifically or otherwise?THink of all the carbon credits you would earn by being in even greater darkness.

[troy2000]

THink of all the carbon credits you would earn by being in even greater darkness.

Think of all the intelligent remarks you could have made, instead of that one...;)

[masrapido]

Oh, come on cowboys! What's with the softy approach? Where's the testosterone, where's the adrenaline...?

Age catching up? We all know that civilised behaviour is not the forte of this thread.

Grab'em by the fricken balls and start squeezing until he admits the NYTC was all his wife's idea...

[troy2000]

nah
I pretty much take the whole internet thing with a grain of salt
some folks get a bit crazy with how they treat one another in this thing but its all just a function of hiding behind a keyboard rather than dealing with folks face to face.

I still get asked to help bounce at my favorite bar from time to time when they need a hand, and I can assure you, folks are a lot more polite when your in there face than when you have a bit of distance and they figure they have a running start. Reminds me of the internet sometimes, some folks are real brave at 100' down the road even after being all yes sir, no sir on the way to the door.

although it might be entertaining to get you guys in the same room and start feeding you drinks
ok my evil side


Let me ask you this, Boston. Those guys who get brave and mouthy once they're a hundred feet down the road... would you buy them a drink, next time you saw them?:rolleyes:

[DrCraze]

I think what he means is once he gets them pissed drunk he can pound em into the asphalt and blame it on them.:(

[Boston]

depends if they already started swinging or not
if not and none of the other guys are handy I typically step in and say something like "hey guys lets cool it ok, how about if I buy a round and you two keep your distance for the rest of the night." If they still want to cause trouble and none of the other guys is around yet I suggest we talk about it outside. If that doesn't work then I start getting serious, but I typically give em a lot of room to settle down and not cause a ruckus in front of the customers.
keeps the management happy and I didn't wreck my cloths. Otherwise if all else fails I jump the bigger of the two or whoever is being the bigger ass and drag them out backward in a choke hold. Works (almost) every time, unless I get my ass kicked which has been known to happen. But your really not supposed to get physical unless you have back up. Thing is I dont wear a mike so if say one of the bar tenders cant get the attention of one of the bouncers or bar backs then sometimes they look at me like "get these clowns out of hear", and Im kinda depending on them to get some help to me soonest.

buying a round often works out pretty well

if they are already in it I just choke down whoever's winning
not trying to be MR tough guy or anything, I'll sneak up on him from behind and grab him before he even knows Im in the game


my two cents

B

[hoytedow]

Think of all the intelligent remarks you could have made, instead of that one...;)I did, but I really like that one.:cool:

[hoytedow]

Quick - why a feather in the headband?In case he wants to write a letter.

[hoytedow]

You are obnoxious, aren't you? As usual, you're making unwarranted assumptions and taking cheap shots--just like you did when you assumed I was a draftee.

I'm a system operations specialist. That's a fancy term for an operating engineer, and believe me--there's more to it than watching that hypothetical valve you're so obsessed with. We have three compressor plants, two auxiliary equipment buildings, cooling towers, surge tanks, air receivers, containment ponds, meter runs, scrubbers...and yes, valves. Except during normal working hours, the operator is the only person on the premises. We're responsible for starting, stopping, adjusting and monitoring compressor units, generators, fin fans, water pumps, etc., scattered over 28 acres.

Describing my job as 'watching a valve' is about like describing a bus driver or trucker's job as sitting around all day. And why do you call my pay 'excessive' for making sure this station pulls and pushes up to 1.2 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas into California (instead of turning into a hole in the ground), since you have no idea what my pay is? The last time I checked my bank account, I wasn't a rich man yet.

I don't work for the State of California. I work for the nation's largest natural gas utility, and it's a division of Sempra Energy--a publicly traded corporation. If you ever get any money, you might look into it as an investment.

I'll have to work thirty five years to earn full retirement benefits, not fifteen. Our pension fund is completely self-funded, and doesn't have a dime of state or federal money in it.

Let's see: you've previously expressed your contempt for any sort of academic, scientist or other well-educated intellectual, as well as for public employees, officials and politicians. And now you're expressing the same utter contempt for blue-collar workers.

That's pretty much a clean sweep; looks to me like you have no respect for anyone at all. I'm betting you don't even like yourself much, or you wouldn't be so resentful of everyone else....Why do you bite the hand that feeds you? Every ounce of NG you process adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Why not take that natural gas and generate your own electricity so you won't buy from Arizona? So many questions, so no answers.

[hoytedow]

Prove it. Put up or shut up.Ah, your mudder wears army boots.

[hoytedow]

Looky here.: http://www.john-daly.com/refugees/index.htm

[fasteddy106]

I can't believe it. You're going to the Heartland Institute's own website again, and quoting their shamelessly self-serving bs as some sort of proof of who and what they are?:p

Why don't you look at what they do, instead? What they do is shill for the causes of the people who give them major funding...whether it be Phillip Morris, Monsanto or ExxonMobile.

They even have personnel from major donors on their board of directors, which makes a complete mockery of their claims to be independent and objective. That includes people like Walter F. Buchholtz, Government Relations & Issues Advisor for ExxonMobil Corporation, and Ray E. Marden, Manager of Industry Affairs for Phillip Morris Corporation.

Following SourceWatch's documentation of Heartland's ties to the tobacco industry, the group wrote that Marden "helped convince others in the company to approve contributions to us because of our opposition to high taxes on cigarettes, the abuse of tort law leading up to the Master Settlement Agreement, and other tobacco-related issues. This was not a conflict of interest: All nonprofit organizations put representatives of foundations and corporations on their boards with the expectation that they help “give or get” financial support ..."

That's a quote directly from their own website too, by the way: http://www.heartland.org/about/truthsquad.html

So what do you mean, "groundless claims I can't back up?" What more do you need, Eddy? A written confession signed by their president, with photocopies on their website?

They are absolutely a pro business, pro taxpayer, and pro libertarian/conservative think tank. They embody smaller government, free enterprise, lower taxes and keeping the government within the cofines of the founding fathers. See, that's the fundemental difference between you and me Troy, I don't have a problem with their agenda. But they are far more than shills for corporations. That their board of directors has had major corporate officers is no surprise and no crime, yet! I see far more evil coming from ever growing government regulations and mandates than I see from corporations doing what they are supposed to do. Earn profits for their shareholders within the limits of the law.

See, I don't see free enterprise and capitalism as the enemy. Get over it!

[fasteddy106]

your grasping at minutia again, it proves that a quick search did not locate the picture I have already posted on this thread. Your arguments concerning the heartland institute show that they are fraudulently using the names of dedicated scientists claiming that they support there view even long after those scientists have come out and demanded that there named be removed from any of the spin being published by what is obviously a front group for the oil and gas as well as the tobacco companies.

I have to wonder if you have no stronger point of contention with the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift than to complain about a picture of a tin shed with a sign over the door, Frankly it would not surprise me at all if these clowns spent some of the millions they receive in dirty money to buy themselves a decent office.

tell you what
if come up with the picture do I get a written appology and will you then argue for the theory rather than against since this issue seems to be so high on your list of reasons to believe in it or not
or
if I retract my statement will you then retract any statements you have made that are not also accompanied by irrefutable evidence

( take your time on this important decision there Eddy cause if you recall I've made it clear that I have no issue whatsoever with learning through both my own errors and the errors of others

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c262/bostonpyramidbuilder/birdy.jpg


point being that nothing will convince you that your picking around the distant edges of the theory is a the best you can do to ignore the core of the science which is so overwhelming in its support of the theory that there is simply no debate.

best of luck with that and get back to me on your decision on how you would like to handle the lack of a picture of a tin shed :P :P :P

cheers
B


Waiting for the pic of the tin shed

[fasteddy106]

nah
I pretty much take the whole internet thing with a grain of salt
some folks get a bit crazy with how they treat one another in this thing but its all just a function of hiding behind a keyboard rather than dealing with folks face to face.

I still get asked to help bounce at my favorite bar from time to time when they need a hand, and I can assure you, folks are a lot more polite when your in there face than when you have a bit of distance and they figure they have a running start. Reminds me of the internet sometimes, some folks are real brave at 100' down the road even after being all yes sir, no sir on the way to the door.

although it might be entertaining to get you guys in the same room and start feeding you drinks
ok my evil side

anyway ya I'll ask him for a tittle next time I see him and try and relay it to you
hell you might even know the guy as Im sure its all the same union and all

oh well
still waiting for Hoyt to come up with those failed predictions and by who

cheers
B

ps
I notice Sloweddy did not take me up on my offers to resolve that picture question
seemed reasonable to me that if we could agree to rescind all unsupported comments we might actually start getting somewhere on this thread
I suppose since a brief search did not produce that picture of the heartlands tin shack and since I cheerfully have no intention of wasting my time digging through 7000 posts that I'd be willing to retract that "one" if only the deniers would retract there innumerable statements that were made without viable support.
seems fair to me since such a big deal was made of it and since the deniers regularly fail to provide any supporting data for there claims
I think its nice that it gives us room for a compromise :D :D :D :D :D+


Hey Boston, sorry to take so long getting back to you. I was working on my boats this weekend. Some of us actually have one or more. See you did your usual weasel routine when you are caught in a ******** claim. You made the claim of the tin shed, not me. I posted where you could see a satelite photo of the building housing the Heartland Institute, you posted ******** to deflect from your original ********, as usual per you. You make an unsubstantiated charge you can't back up yet try to ridicule the person who calls you on it. I agree, it isn't really important other than it shows how full of it you really are with so many of your posts.

[fasteddy106]

Too funny not to post.............


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMNi-2SrQA&feature=player_embedded

[Boston]

still expecting others to do exactly what you yourself are unwilling to do eh

I'll make that offer again and this time challenge you to provide a single other instance in which I did not immediately provide corroborating data to back up any claim I made


ps
I notice Sloweddy did not take me up on my offers to resolve that picture question
seemed reasonable to me that if we could agree to rescind all unsupported comments we might actually start getting somewhere on this thread
I suppose since a brief search did not produce that picture of the heartlands tin shack and since I cheerfully have no intention of wasting my time digging through 7000 posts that I'd be willing to retract that "one" if only the deniers would retract there innumerable statements that were made without viable support.
seems fair to me since such a big deal was made of it and since the deniers regularly fail to provide any supporting data for there claims
I think its nice that it gives us room for a compromise +

for instance this last unsupported claim

Sloweddy

other than it shows how full of it you really are with so many of your posts.

would you care to elaborate on previous posts that lacked supporting data when asked cause if I recall this is a first and at that only cause it offers a great opportunity to compromise

which obviously is a term unfamiliar to you
my condolences to your family

love
B

[fasteddy106]

With apologies to the Cartoon Network..........................Here is Boston...........

[fasteddy106]

Here is a picture of the actual building where the Heartland Institute has its headquarters, not quite a tin shed as claimed by The Weasel..........

[troy2000]

Here is a picture of the actual building where the Heartland Institute has its headquarters, not quite a tin shed as claimed by The Weasel..........

But don't get the idea it's their building; they just rent offices there.

[troy2000]

Why do you bite the hand that feeds you? Every ounce of NG you process adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Why not take that natural gas and generate your own electricity so you won't buy from Arizona? So many questions, so no answers.
I'm not sure what you mean by "biting the hand that feeds me." Are you saying that what a person believes about climate change should depend on who he works for?

California already produces a higher percentage of its electricity (36%)from natural gas than the rest of the country, and the number of gas-fired power plants is rising steadily. 20% of the state's electricity also comes from renewable sources, by the way. That's compared to 2% for the country as a whole.

20% comes from hydroelectric sources, and another 20% from nuclear power. Only about 4% of its power comes from the coal and petroleum, as opposed to 50% for the country as a whole. Since natural gas burns so much cleaner than coal and fuel oil, we're already leaps and bounds ahead of the other states when it comes to pollution from electrical generation--or heating purposes, for that matter.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=CA

When it comes to that weenie Arizona state commissioner threatening to cut off power to Los Angeles, I don't know where Fox news is getting its claim that almost a third of California's electricity comes from Arizona; it's simply not true. Only 13% of our electricity is imported from the entire Southwest. The reason it's even that high is because in the 1990's the state's economic and population growth outstripped our generating capacity, and it takes years to bring new plants online. We're doing so steadily, though.

Maybe they confused the numbers for the City of Los Angeles with the numbers for the entire state? At any rate, the commissioner who was threatening to pull the plug doesn't have the power to do so. Los Angeles and the State of California are part owners of Arizona's major power plants, not just customers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100519/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2133

[troy2000]

They are absolutely a pro business, pro taxpayer, and pro libertarian/conservative think tank. They embody smaller government, free enterprise, lower taxes and keeping the government within the cofines of the founding fathers. See, that's the fundemental difference between you and me Troy, I don't have a problem with their agenda. But they are far more than shills for corporations. That their board of directors has had major corporate officers is no surprise and no crime, yet! I see far more evil coming from ever growing government regulations and mandates than I see from corporations doing what they are supposed to do. Earn profits for their shareholders within the limits of the law.

See, I don't see free enterprise and capitalism as the enemy. Get over it!

I don't care what they "embody." What they do is produce position papers for the benefit of their donors. They have no credibility at all when it comes to the actual science surrounding climate change, and they shouldn't even be mentioned in any honest discussion of it.

No, it isn't a crime for them to have corporate officers from ExxonMobile and Phillip Morris on their board. But again, it puts paid to your claims that they're any sort of objective, believable source of facts, as opposed to just being a propaganda mill.

I don't 'see capitalism and free enterprise as the enemy,' either. It's dishonest of you to pretend I do. You're trying to twist the debate into a personal attack on me, instead of trying to disprove what I believe about climate change.

But as long as you brought it up, I don't think we need to kiss the butts of the people in the oil and tobacco industries and let them do anything they want, just because their companies are profitable. They have as much of an obligation to be responsible citizens as I do, or anyone else does.

[Boston]

if the best you can do is complain about a missing picture of a tin shed rather than something to do with the truth of Rapid Global Climate Change then I don't really think your fooling anyone Sloweddy

as I've said I'll be happy to retract any statements I made ( one so far ) that do not come with the requisite supporting information if you will only agree to do the same.
Something wrong with that logic or are you unwilling to behave with the same integrity you seem expect from others.

dam
best thing I could have done was not bother looking up that pict cause its working wonders to show the petty double standards some deniers are willing to stoop to in order to make a point, any point cause you guys sure have failed to establish a singe scientific principal that supports your stance thus far.

cmon Slowpoke why not agree to retract any statements that are not fully supportable in the data presented
something wrong with that deal or are you concerned it will come back to haunt you

its called setting an example
can you or cant you agree to live up to the same expectations you have of others

might be a little hard to maintain the denial eh
specially if you honestly were to retract every position shown to be scientifically unsound

little things like

the increase in atmospheric co2 is caused by the oceans ( not true )
the increase in atmospheric co2 is caused by volcano's ( not true )
the increase in atmospheric co2 is not directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels ( not true )
change in vapor precedes change in temp ( not true )
the solar cycle's variability can account for the dramatic rise in temp and in co2 ( not true )
there is no thermohaline deep ocean circulation ( not true )
the predictions made by early scientists studying the theory of rapid global climate shift are inaccurate ( not true )
the predictions made by the early works of the IPCC have been shown to not be conservative or accurate within the predicted uncertainty ( not true )
the heartland institute is a crock ( true )

I could go on but you get the "picture"
speaking of picture
either go look up that picture of the heartlands tin shed for yourself ( have fun digging through 7000 posts ) or agree to retract any unsupportable claims of your own

its your call
and so far all your doing is making my point more and more obvious

cheers
B

[fasteddy106]

If anyone is trying to twist things Troy it is you. You are still making wild unsubstantiated claims about research done at the behest of The Heartland Institute. You say because they have corporate officials on their board they cannot be trusted. You say they produce papers for the benefit of their donors yet don't offer any proof that the papers are using bogus science. You are asking us to believe that any funding besides government grants produce suspect products. That's where I get the anti free enterprise vibes from you so stop whining about dishonesty and grow up. You make repeated assertions and assumptions post after post and they whine when I interpret you assertions exactly as you intended them. You seem to be the one interested in personal shots all the time with anyone who disagrees with you.

Finally I really don't give a rats ass about what you believe. I have seen more than enough proof that AGW is at best mistaken and at worst a fraud. I just don't have any compulsion to let you have free reign with your elitist ********.

[fasteddy106]

if the best you can do is complain about a missing picture of a tin shed rather than something to do with the truth of Rapid Global Climate Change then I don't really think your fooling anyone Sloweddy

as I've said I'll be happy to retract any statements I made ( one so far ) that do not come with the requisite supporting information if you will only agree to do the same.
Something wrong with that logic or are you unwilling to behave with the same integrity you seem expect from others.

dam
best thing I could have done was not bother looking up that pict cause its working wonders to show the petty double standards some deniers are willing to stoop to in order to make a point, any point cause you guys sure have failed to establish a singe scientific principal that supports your stance thus far.

cmon Slowpoke why not agree to retract any statements that are not fully supportable in the data presented
something wrong with that deal or are you concerned it will come back to haunt you

its called setting an example
can you or cant you agree to live up to the same expectations you have of others

might be a little hard to maintain the denial eh
specially if you honestly were to retract every position shown to be scientifically unsound

little things like

the increase in atmospheric co2 is not caused by the oceans
the increase in atmospheric co2 is not caused by volcano's
the increase in atmospheric co2 is directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels
change in temp precedes change in vapor
the solar cycle's variability does not account for the dramatic rise in temp and in co2
there is a thermohaline deep ocean circulation
the predictions made by early scientists studying the theory of rapid global climate shift are accurate
the predictions made by the early works of the IPCC have been shown to be conservative or accurate within the predicted uncertainty
the heartland institute is a crock

I could go on but you get the "picture"

either go look up that picture of the heartlands tin shed for yourself ( have fun digging through 7000 posts ) or agree to retract any unsupportable claims

its your call
and so far all your doing is making my point more and more obvious

cheers
B


The Weasel is still incapable of admitting an error, or worst an intentional(again)deception.

I didn't post the tin shed remark, you did, it's your job to back it up. Boston's new moniker -------------

[troy2000]

If anyone is trying to twist things Troy it is you. You are still making wild unsubstantiated claims about research done at the behest of The Heartland Institute. You say because they have corporate officials on their board they cannot be trusted. You say they produce papers for the benefit of their donors yet don't offer any proof that the papers are using bogus science. You are asking us to believe that any funding besides government grants produce suspect products. That's where I get the anti free enterprise vibes from you so stop whining about dishonesty and grow up. You make repeated assertions and assumptions post after post and they whine when I interpret you assertions exactly as you intended them. You seem to be the one interested in personal shots all the time with anyone who disagrees with you.

Finally I really don't give a rats ass about what you believe. I have seen more than enough proof that AGW is at best mistaken and at worst a fraud. I just don't have any compulsion to let you have free reign with your elitist ********.

How do I get this through your thick skull? They don't DO any scientific or medical research at the Heartland Institute, and they don't pay for any! All they do is compile and publish, and they're completely dishonest about doing that. They're a propaganda mill, not a research lab. For crying out loud, Eddie. You yourself have admitted they're a 'think tank,' not a scientific facility.

Elitist ********? Well, now that you mention it, I suppose I am elite--compared to you, anyway. At least I'm sharp enough to realize that worshiping 'free enterprise and capitalism' doesn't confer any Constitutional or God-given right to spread bald-faced lies about scientific and medical research. Religious freedom has its limits.

And please don't start this 'prove they use bogus science' nonsense again. It's been documented and demonstrated time after time after time that they do so. You're pulling the same old crap: you let the lies rest for a while after they've been slapped down. Then you bring them right back up, and demand that we disprove them all over again--like it wasn't already done twenty pages ago, and fifty, and a hundred.....

If you've convinced yourself that swallowing bought-and-paid-for ******** makes you a good little American boy, and laughing at it makes me an old meanie who hates free enterprise and capitalism, you're the one who needs to grow up.

But I don't like the chances of that ever happening....:p

[mark775]

Troy, Very sorry to disappoint you because I don't swing that way...but even if I DID, I just don't care for wine coolers. Have you tried the Castro?

[fasteddy106]

How do I get this through your thick skull? They don't DO any scientific or medical research at the Heartland Institute, and they don't pay for any! All they do is compile and publish, and they're completely dishonest about doing that. They're a propaganda mill, not a research lab. For crying out loud, Eddie. You yourself have admitted they're a 'think tank,' not a scientific facility.

Elitist ********? Well, now that you mention it, I suppose I am elite--compared to you, anyway. At least I'm sharp enough to realize that worshiping 'free enterprise and capitalism' doesn't confer any Constitutional or God-given right to spread bald-faced lies about scientific and medical research. Religious freedom has its limits.

And please don't start this 'prove they use bogus science' nonsense again. It's been documented and demonstrated time after time after time that they do so. You're pulling the same old crap: you let the lies rest for a while after they've been slapped down. Then you bring them right back up, and demand that we disprove them all over again--like it wasn't already done twenty pages ago, and fifty, and a hundred.....

If you've convinced yourself that swallowing bought-and-paid-for ******** makes you a good little American boy, and laughing at it makes me an old meanie who hates free enterprise and capitalism, you're the one who needs to grow up.

But I don't like the chances of that ever happening....:p


When you run of rational argument, just swing wildly, and shout insults at the top of your lungs in the hope no one realizes you're full of ****. Good job Troy!

[Boston]

:P :P :P :P :P :P :P

Sloweddy I cant imagine anyone reading along actually being fooled by your constant misconceptions. Im pretty happy to admit I'm not going to look up that picture if your willing to admit your wrong on this short list of scientific realities along with a rather longer list Im also not going to bother researching for you

cmon Slowpoke why not agree to retract any statements that are not fully supportable in the data presented
something wrong with that deal or are you concerned it will come back to haunt you

its called setting an example
can you or cant you agree to live up to the same expectations you have of others

might be a little hard to maintain the denial eh
specially if you honestly were to retract every position shown to be scientifically unsound

little things like

the increase in atmospheric co2 is not caused by the oceans ( not true )
the increase in atmospheric co2 is not caused by volcano's ( not true )
the increase in atmospheric co2 is directly attributable to the burning of fossil fuels ( not true )
change in temp precedes change in vapor ( not true )
the solar cycle's variability does not account for the dramatic rise in temp and in co2 ( not true )
there is a thermohaline deep ocean circulation ( not true )
the predictions made by early scientists studying the theory of rapid global climate shift are inaccurate ( not true )
the predictions made by the early works of the IPCC have not been shown to be conservative or accurate within the predicted uncertainty ( not true )
the heartland institute is a crock ( oh so true )

its almost funny how consistently you land on the ignore list
your posts are completely devoid of merit and your grasp of the science involved shows you simply aren't able to comprehend even basic physics, no wonder you are so easily swayed by the frauds at the heartland non-institute

if you are unable to answer the easy questions
for instance

if you would like others to provide supporting data for there posts should you not also be expected to do the same ?

how can you be expected to respond accurately to the more difficult ones
like
why does temp precede vapor
or
why is it that the oceans cannot be responsible for the increase in atmospheric co2

and of course provide supporting data for these answers just like you expect others to do

or is this the typical double standard deniers tend to apply in order to ignore the science and simply argue minutia

love
B

[fasteddy106]

I would be happy if you would admit you were wrong about the "tin shed" remark. C'mon, it's not that hard, just say, "OK, I was wrong, The Heartland Institute in not housed in a tin shed. The rest of the nonsense is irrelevent to your false statement. First admit you were wrong, then we can move on to the rest of your mistaken perceptions and misinformation.

[Boston]

I would be happy to do that if you will only agree to do the same
Hell I'd be thrilled to admit exactly the shortcoming of my post concerning that shack

its a simple concept

you would like me to do something you yourself are incapable of doing

Its downright funny to have you over a barrel like this
you blatant refusal to do exactly what you expect of others is glaringly apparent

your refusing to retract the statements you made that have been proven false
I am not refusing the retract any statements on my part that can be shown to also be incorrect
on the contrary I would be happy to however I am expecting nothing less from you as well

will you or will you not retract the list of items you have been proven wrong on just as you expect me to retract my statement that was not accompanied by a picture of a tin shed

[troy2000]

Troy, Very sorry to disappoint you because I don't swing that way...but even if I DID, I just don't care for wine coolers. Have you tried the Castro?

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I have no idea what you're talking about. And it isn't worth going through my posts to figure out what you're twisting out of all recognition this time....I'll just add "sexual orientation" to the list of gratuitous insults you've spewed out that have nothing at all to do with climate change. I'm surprised it took you so long to get around to that one, little man; it's usually the first one that rolls off the tongue of someone as insecure about his own manhood as you seem to be.

[troy2000]

When you run of rational argument, just swing wildly, and shout insults at the top of your lungs in the hope no one realizes you're full of ****. Good job Troy!

On the contrary, eddy. I'm quoting hard, verifiable facts--and you know it.

A classic example of the way the Heartland Institute operates was just brought up by Boston a few posts ago, and it's an example I mentioned myself a few pages ago. They printed a piece called 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Man-Made Global Warming Scares. Dozens of the scientists who were listed as contributors and co-authors said the list completely misrepresents their work and their views, and demanded that their names be removed.

The Heartland Institute refused. That's the kind of lying weasels you're defending, Eddy.

Go ahead: prove me wrong. Show me one piece of legitimate medical or scientific research they've conducted or funded. If they're what you claim they are, that should be dead simple--even for you.

[alanrockwood]

Ah, your mudder wears army boots.

The topic to which you were responding was whether the "experts" had predicted thirty years ago that current sea levels should have risen several meters by now. (For those who want to catch up with the history of this sub thread, Hoyt said that he agreed 100% with a post by another person who made this statement about sea level prediction, so Hoyt is also taking ownership of the statement, not in the sense that he first made it, but that it represents his own thinking.)

When challenged to document that the "experts" had made such a prediction then after a couple of tries this seems to be the most intelligent and on-topic statement Hoyt can come up with. Clearly Hoyt, you have no evidence to support the the claim that the experts had made this prediction, and to make or support this fraud is just another one of your ways to lie or try to mislead others on the topic of global warming.

Oh, and yes Hoyt, before you wax indignant about my impugning of your character, you can take this post to mean that I am impugning your character, or to be more correct, I am pointing out that you are impugning your own character by your deceitful statements.

[fasteddy106]

I would be happy to do that if you will only agree to do the same
Hell I'd be thrilled to admit exactly the shortcoming of my post concerning that shack

its a simple concept

you would like me to do something you yourself are incapable of doing

Its downright funny to have you over a barrel like this
you blatant refusal to do exactly what you expect of others is glaringly apparent

your refusing to retract the statements you made that have been proven false
I am not refusing the retract any statements on my part that can be shown to also be incorrect
on the contrary I would be happy to however I am expecting nothing less from you as well

will you or will you not retract the list of items you have been proven wrong on just as you expect me to retract my statement that was not accompanied by a picture of a tin shed

I will talk about those items and show you where you are wrong on each item and in detail when you admit you again purposely posted information you knew to be false. You have me over no barrel, you have again proven you are not to be trusted and have no credibility. Now that I have proven that your statement was false and you are again a fraud, and a phoney, I don't need to go any farther. You have the burden to try and salvage something here.

[fasteddy106]

On the contrary, eddy. I'm quoting hard, verifiable facts--and you know it.

A classic example of the way the Heartland Institute operates was just brought up by Boston a few posts ago, and it's an example I mentioned myself a few pages ago. They printed a piece called 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Man-Made Global Warming Scares. Dozens of the scientists who were listed as contributors and co-authors said the list completely misrepresents their work and their views, and demanded that their names be removed.

The Heartland Institute refused. That's the kind of lying weasels you're defending, Eddy.

Go ahead: prove me wrong. Show me one piece of legitimate medical or scientific research they've conducted or funded. If they're what you claim they are, that should be dead simple--even for you.

Uhhhh, I posted the reply about the 500 letter. Do your own homework.

[troy2000]

Uhhhh, I posted the reply about the 500 letter. Do your own homework.

Then you know the truth. Shame on you, for defending them anyway. Apparently your ethics are no better than theirs.

[fasteddy106]

Then you know the truth. Shame on you, for defending them anyway. Apparently your ethics are no better than theirs.

Let's see, let me take a page from your book. YOU DON'T KNOW ME WELL ENOUGH TO SAY THAT. I'M OUTRAGED THAT YOU WOULD IMPLY SUCH A THING, THAT'S DISHONEST OF YOU, WAH WAH WAH.

I read their explanation, seemed reasonable to me. More importantly you are confusing me with someone who might give a **** about your opinion of me, or anything else for that matter.

[fasteddy106]

Uh, one other thing, I think all I ever claimed about them was that they were a think tank that embodied libertarian/conservative ideals. You haven't posted anything contrary to that.

[troy2000]

Let's see, let me take a page from your book. YOU DON'T KNOW ME WELL ENOUGH TO SAY THAT. I'M OUTRAGED THAT YOU WOULD IMPLY SUCH A THING, THAT'S DISHONEST OF YOU, WAH WAH WAH.

I read their explanation, seemed reasonable to me. More importantly you are confusing me with someone who might give a **** about your opinion of me, or anything else for that matter.

I know you employ dishonest debating tactics, and I know you're defending a think tank that disseminates dishonest, pseudo-scientific papers to further corporate agendas, under the guise of American ideals and sticking up for the common man.

What else do I really need to know about you, eddy?

[fasteddy106]

I know you employ dishonest debating tactics, and I know you're defending a think tank that disseminates dishonest, pseudo-scientific papers to further corporate agendas, under the guise of American ideals and sticking up for the common man.

What else do I really need to know about you, eddy?


That it makes me smile knowing the amount of angst it causes you that someone not only doesn't accept your vision for the world but could really care less what that vision is except as how it pollutes the political atmosphere with ******** and threatens to impose yet another layer of bureacracy and social agenda under the pretension of saving the planet from a non-existant crisis.

[troy2000]

That it makes me smile knowing the amount of angst it causes you that someone not only doesn't accept your vision for the world but could really care less what that vision is except as how it pollutes the political atmosphere with ******** and threatens to impose yet another layer of bureacracy and social agenda under the pretension of saving the planet from a non-existant crisis.

Oh Lord.....spare me the pompous speeches:p

It doesn't cause me any great angst and anxiety to know there are folks like you around. It's just mildly disgusting to deal with them; it gives me an urge to wash my hands and sanitize my keyboard and monitor when I'm done.:)

[hoytedow]

Have you tried stretching saran wrap over the keyboard? It works very well to stop the rabid drivel and drool of old geezers like us.:P

[troy2000]

Have you tried stretching saran wrap over the keyboard? It works very well to stop the rabid drivel and drool of old geezers like us.:P

I keep a roll handy, Hoyt, because at my age I tend to drool on my keyboard when I see pictures of beautiful young women. Or beef brisket, Key lime pie and other goodies, for that matter....

[fasteddy106]

This is truly amazing. All this acrimony because I caught Boston in another deception, and didn't agree with Troys undocumented and unsubstantiated assertions about a libertarian/conservative think tank. Actually it is pretty funny how petty Troy can be, and how Weasel like Boston can be.

[troy2000]

This is truly amazing. All this acrimony because I caught Boston in another deception, and didn't agree with Troys undocumented and unsubstantiated assertions about a libertarian/conservative think tank. Actually it is pretty funny how petty Troy can be, and how Weasel like Boston can be.No...because you're adamantly denying well-documented and fully substantiated facts, eddy. And doing so rudely, I might add.

If you want me to be polite, use some manners yourself. Try imagining you're speaking to me face to face--and will face the consequences of not keeping a civil tongue in your head. I seriously doubt either you or Mark speak to people in person the way you do on the internet.

[Boston]

I will talk about those items and show you where you are wrong on each item and in detail when you admit you again purposely posted information you knew to be false. You have me over no barrel, you have again proven you are not to be trusted and have no credibility. Now that I have proven that your statement was false and you are again a fraud, and a phoney, I don't need to go any farther. You have the burden to try and salvage something here.

oh the burden
this heavy heavy burden
sorry
more like a flea on the ass of life

so you just didn't care to play while we were discussing that list of scientific realities and now you suddenly have something enlightening to tell the group
please
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
you have already been proven wrong on all of the above mentioned points
but lets just set that fact aside and stick to the heart of the mater

I not only failed to provide data to back up my rather trivial claim but I'm cheerfully refusing to do so, at least until you agree to retract any statements you have made that also fail to meet the same standard; dam I should have thought of this earlier.

I'm not letting you off the hook that easy there shipmate

I should have thought of this ages ago rather than stumbled into it, but still
your not looking to sharp on this one what with claiming you want to rehash any of the issues you have previously failed on

But still you want me to retract a statement that did not come with the accompanying data to prove it and yet you are yourself refusing to acknowledge even the latest issue you and the deniers have been shown wildly incorrect on. Namely the excess atmospheric co2 could not have come from the oceans just as you and Jimbo argued strenuously.

my point is that if you are willing to retract ( lets just say for now ) that one claim as it has been shown through both scientific review and threw some fairly simple logic then I would of course respond in kind and spend a moment or two concerning my presumed felonious post

if the oceans dissolved co2 levels are increasing and the atmospheric levels of co2 are increasing then how can one be supplying the other at this unprecedented rate of change without there being a third contributing factor

also Alan's rather lengthy review of the mathematics involved is hardly refutable

and just for fun lets add in the part about the residence time of co2 within the atmosphere as the latest work shows that significant amounts reside for hundreds if not thousands of years.

lets start with you admitting at least those rather irefutable points and I will cheerfully admit not having provided data to support my one claim ( your also welcome to back up your implication that I fail to support my positions regularly by providing a single other example )

at which point I will do a back flip while cheerfully announcing to the world my own shortcomings in regards to the post in question

cheers to all
B

[Boston]

good post
I'll have to look that one up eh

about what Im getting out of Sloweddy

simple reality is I should have refused to provide supporting information long ago
its a simple mater of double standards

I'm saying loud and clear that I will cheerfully retract any statement that is either not accompanied by supporting data is or is shown to be incorrect if only the deniers will as well

seems completely reasonable to me

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

[alanrockwood]

Below is an interesting statement from Exxon. Each side can read into it nuances that support their own positions.



* Nick Thomas
* The Guardian, Friday 10 July 2009
* Article history

You report the views of Bob Ward from the Grantham Research Institute, who attempts to portray us as climate change deniers (ExxonMobil is still funding groups that question global warming, 2 July). We are not. We take climate change seriously and have the same concerns as people everywhere - how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the risks to society and ecosystems from increases in greenhouse gas emissions are significant. We agree that it is prudent to address these risks. We have researched this issue for more than 25 years, and produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature. Our scientists serve on the IPCC and numerous scientific bodies. But the article ignored these facts.

You stated that last year we "handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds" to lobby groups that "question the reality of global warming". Like many other companies, we seek to promote discussion on issues that are relevant to us and contribute to a wide range of academic and policy organisations. These have a diverse group of supporters and obviously we cannot, nor do we try to, control what they say on any particular issue.

The article made no mention of other organisations we have funded, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, the Brookings Institution, Princeton University and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction.

Ward says: "If the company wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it." We are not interested in funding such views. Over the past few years we have discontinued contributions to several policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from this important discussion about how the world will secure energy for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner. We review our contributions on an annual basis.

Meanwhile, we are addressing the risks of climate change by reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions, helping consumers reduce theirs, supporting research into technology breakthroughs, and participating in policy dialogue. Specifically we have developed emission-reducing technologies such as tyre liners that keep tyres inflated longer, advanced fuel-economy engine oil, and lightweight motor vehicle plastics.

We are working on technologies to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions, such as lithium battery separator film for hybrid electric cars, research into advanced engines, and ways to generate hydrogen on board vehicles. We are investing more than $100m in technology to separate carbon dioxide from natural gas, which could help carbon capture and storage applications.

In addition we are sponsoring breakthrough research to make alternatives like solar and biofuels more available and affordable on a wider scale.

There is no single solution to the challenge of reducing emissions while meeting growing energy needs. We need to produce and use hydrocarbons more efficiently, and improve and develop alternative energy sources.

• Nick Thomas is director of corporate affairs for ExxonMobil International uk.publicaffairs@exxonmobil.com

[fasteddy106]

oh the burden
this heavy heavy burden
sorry
more like a flea on the ass of life

so you just didn't care to play while we were discussing that list of scientific realities and now you suddenly have something enlightening to tell the group
please
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
you have already been proven wrong on all of the above mentioned points
but lets just set that fact aside and stick to the heart of the mater

I not only failed to provide data to back up my rather trivial claim but I'm cheerfully refusing to do so, at least until you agree to retract any statements you have made that also fail to meet the same standard; dam I should have thought of this earlier.

I'm not letting you off the hook that easy there shipmate

I should have thought of this ages ago rather than stumbled into it, but still
your not looking to sharp on this one what with claiming you want to rehash any of the issues you have previously failed on

But still you want me to retract a statement that did not come with the accompanying data to prove it and yet you are yourself refusing to acknowledge even the latest issue you and the deniers have been shown wildly incorrect on. Namely the excess atmospheric co2 could not have come from the oceans just as you and Jimbo argued strenuously.

my point is that if you are willing to retract ( lets just say for now ) that one claim as it has been shown through both scientific review and threw some fairly simple logic then I would of course respond in kind and spend a moment or two concerning my presumed felonious post

if the oceans dissolved co2 levels are increasing and the atmospheric levels of co2 are increasing then how can one be supplying the other at this unprecedented rate of change without there being a third contributing factor

also Alan's rather lengthy review of the mathematics involved is hardly refutable

and just for fun lets add in the part about the residence time of co2 within the atmosphere as the latest work shows that significant amounts reside for hundreds if not thousands of years.

lets start with you admitting at least those rather irefutable points and I will cheerfully admit not having provided data to support my one claim ( your also welcome to back up your implication that I fail to support my positions regularly by providing a single other example )

at which point I will do a back flip while cheerfully announcing to the world my own shortcomings in regards to the post in question

cheers to all
B


You are still being a weasel..............

[fasteddy106]

Below is an interesting statement from Exxon. Each side can read into it nuances that support their own positions.



* Nick Thomas
* The Guardian, Friday 10 July 2009
* Article history

You report the views of Bob Ward from the Grantham Research Institute, who attempts to portray us as climate change deniers (ExxonMobil is still funding groups that question global warming, 2 July). We are not. We take climate change seriously and have the same concerns as people everywhere - how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the risks to society and ecosystems from increases in greenhouse gas emissions are significant. We agree that it is prudent to address these risks. We have researched this issue for more than 25 years, and produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature. Our scientists serve on the IPCC and numerous scientific bodies. But the article ignored these facts.

You stated that last year we "handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds" to lobby groups that "question the reality of global warming". Like many other companies, we seek to promote discussion on issues that are relevant to us and contribute to a wide range of academic and policy organisations. These have a diverse group of supporters and obviously we cannot, nor do we try to, control what they say on any particular issue.

The article made no mention of other organisations we have funded, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, the Brookings Institution, Princeton University and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction.

Ward says: "If the company wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it." We are not interested in funding such views. Over the past few years we have discontinued contributions to several policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from this important discussion about how the world will secure energy for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner. We review our contributions on an annual basis.

Meanwhile, we are addressing the risks of climate change by reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions, helping consumers reduce theirs, supporting research into technology breakthroughs, and participating in policy dialogue. Specifically we have developed emission-reducing technologies such as tyre liners that keep tyres inflated longer, advanced fuel-economy engine oil, and lightweight motor vehicle plastics.

We are working on technologies to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions, such as lithium battery separator film for hybrid electric cars, research into advanced engines, and ways to generate hydrogen on board vehicles. We are investing more than $100m in technology to separate carbon dioxide from natural gas, which could help carbon capture and storage applications.

In addition we are sponsoring breakthrough research to make alternatives like solar and biofuels more available and affordable on a wider scale.

There is no single solution to the challenge of reducing emissions while meeting growing energy needs. We need to produce and use hydrocarbons more efficiently, and improve and develop alternative energy sources.

• Nick Thomas is director of corporate affairs for ExxonMobil International uk.publicaffairs@exxonmobil.com


Thanks for that post Alan. One of the great myths of the debate is that the oil companies will lose if the AGW agenda is adopted. That is nonsense. Petroleum and the thousands of products derived from it will be around until something else is discovered to replace or renders it of the same value as whale oil. It will always be a valuable commodity and will increase in value as it becomes less readily available either through government fiat or depletion. Thus the oil companies will continue to make profits, actually their profits will increase as production and delivery costs will decrease if the supply is artificially reduced by the lunacy of Chicken Little club as championed by the likes of Troy the Whiner(was that rude enough for you Troy) and Boston the Weasel. Just another little deception that has been promoted by the AGW KoolAid Club in order to promote their solution of a crisis that doesn't exist.

[Marco1]

a study led by James Hansen, the head of the climate science program at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University, suggests that current estimates for how high the seas could rise are way off the mark – and that in the next 100 years melting ice could sink cities in the United States to Bangladesh.

That sounds serious. New Year’s Eve in Manhattan could be rough if Times Square was underwater.

But I keep thinking that if sea level was rising significantly, some of the billions of people who live along the coasts might have noticed? My favorite snorkeling beach in California is The Cove in La Jolla. I first went there around 1960, when Raquel Welch (Tejada at the time) was named Homecoming Queen at La Jolla High School. I went snorkeling there again last summer. The beach is still there and hasn’t changed. Below is a photo of The Cove from 1871.

http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/lajollacoveold.jpg

And a recent Photo

http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/090207-lajollacove1.jpg

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lajolla18712b.gif


A lot of erosion has occurred over the last 130 years. In the blink animation above (click on the image to see animation) note that the rock under the three people standing on the right in the 1871 image is gone, and has formed a small island of boulders with three people sitting on it in the recent image. There is no evidence that sea level has risen.

A few Palm Trees have been planted, but the sea appears to be in exactly the same place it was 130 years ago. In fact the rocks on the upper right are higher above the water now than in the earlier picture (high tide.) There is no glacial rebound in San Diego, and the faults in the region are strike-slip (horizontal) faults. They don’t cause vertical movement. Prior to the March quake this year, the last large quake to hit the region was in 1862.

Earthquake map for La Jolla and La Jolla Shores

http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/FaultMaps/117-33.gif

The land in La Jolla hasn’t moved up or down in the last 130 years. Neither has the ocean. Where is this sea level catastrophe happening? On a sandbar? At current melt rates, it will take 300,000 years for Antarctica to melt.

Often, hypochondria persists even after a physician has evaluated a person and reassured them that their concerns about symptoms do not have an underlying medical basis or, if there is a medical illness, the concerns are far in excess of what is appropriate for the level of disease.

WUWT has hundreds of thousands of readers around the world. If any of you have personally seen sea level rise at your favorite beach over the last few decades, please speak up!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_enl_1185603003/img/1.jpg

[fasteddy106]

http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/lajollacoveold.jpg?w=510&h=384

And a recent Photo

http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/090207-lajollacove1.jpg?w=510&h=383


Your big mistake was thinking Marco. All responsible estimates of sea level increase are so inconsequential as to be irrelevent in the debate. So grant whores like Hansen have to make stuff up in order to scare folks. I remember what my grandmother told me about one of the floods to hit her neighborhood in Wilkes-Barre Pa. She was describing how the water came rushing up Pennsylvania Ave towards her house. When I asked what she did, she simply said,"I moved up a couple of steps on the porch".

[fasteddy106]

Oh Lord.....spare me the pompous speeches:p

It doesn't cause me any great angst and anxiety to know there are folks like you around. It's just mildly disgusting to deal with them; it gives me an urge to wash my hands and sanitize my keyboard and monitor when I'm done.:)


What a drama queen!:p

[fasteddy106]

Now on to the Weasel again. As much as you like to self aggrandize, you don't get to set the rules of the debate Boston. You are no more important than anyone else here, and as an anonymous contributor, your opinion only carrries the weight of your personal reputation which you have dirtied time and time again by altering the work of others, superimposing one graph on another,and editing papers from other authors. Jimbo has caught you at this numerous times and not just on this thread. Each and every time you are confronted with your lack of ethics you try to obscure the issue by trying to make up rules for the debate, which of course, is not your province to do. You have become infamous for apples and oranges tactics and replies to others post. You epitomize the old joke, "Do you walk to work or take your lunch?".

So you can go on and on and deny to your hearts content committing any misdeed but those of us who have been in this thread for any period of time know what a fraud and a phoney you really are.

[alanrockwood]

http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/lajollacoveold.jpg

And a recent Photo

http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/090207-lajollacove1.jpg

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lajolla18712b.gif


A lot of erosion has occurred over the last 130 years. In the blink animation above (click on the image to see animation) note that the rock under the three people standing on the right in the 1871 image is gone, and has formed a small island of boulders with three people sitting on it in the recent image. There is no evidence that sea level has risen.

A few Palm Trees have been planted, but the sea appears to be in exactly the same place it was 130 years ago. In fact the rocks on the upper right are higher above the water now than in the earlier picture (high tide.) There is no glacial rebound in San Diego, and the faults in the region are strike-slip (horizontal) faults. They don’t cause vertical movement. Prior to the March quake this year, the last large quake to hit the region was in 1862.

Earthquake map for La Jolla and La Jolla Shores

http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/FaultMaps/117-33.gif

The land in La Jolla hasn’t moved up or down in the last 130 years. Neither has the ocean. Where is this sea level catastrophe happening? On a sandbar? At current melt rates, it will take 300,000 years for Antarctica to melt.

Often, hypochondria persists even after a physician has evaluated a person and reassured them that their concerns about symptoms do not have an underlying medical basis or, if there is a medical illness, the concerns are far in excess of what is appropriate for the level of disease.

WUWT has hundreds of thousands of readers around the world. If any of you have personally seen sea level rise at your favorite beach over the last few decades, please speak up!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_enl_1185603003/img/1.jpg

This graph gives the sea level change over the last 130 years of so. It amounts to about 8 inches.

You may or may not see this at your local beach because land levels are also changing, up in some areas and down in others. For example, the land level in Scandinavia is rising and has been since the end of the last ice age via a phenomenon called "glacial rebound."

[troy2000]

And a recent Photo


A lot of erosion has occurred over the last 130 years. In the blink animation above (click on the image to see animation) note that the rock under the three people standing on the right in the 1871 image is gone, and has formed a small island of boulders with three people sitting on it in the recent image. There is no evidence that sea level has risen.

A few Palm Trees have been planted, but the sea appears to be in exactly the same place it was 130 years ago. In fact the rocks on the upper right are higher above the water now than in the earlier picture (high tide.) There is no glacial rebound in San Diego, and the faults in the region are strike-slip (horizontal) faults. They don’t cause vertical movement. Prior to the March quake this year, the last large quake to hit the region was in 1862.

Earthquake map for La Jolla and La Jolla Shores

http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/FaultMaps/117-33.gif

The land in La Jolla hasn’t moved up or down in the last 130 years. Neither has the ocean. Where is this sea level catastrophe happening? On a sandbar? At current melt rates, it will take 300,000 years for Antarctica to melt.

Often, hypochondria persists even after a physician has evaluated a person and reassured them that their concerns about symptoms do not have an underlying medical basis or, if there is a medical illness, the concerns are far in excess of what is appropriate for the level of disease.

WUWT has hundreds of thousands of readers around the world. If any of you have personally seen sea level rise at your favorite beach over the last few decades, please speak up!



Actually, the sea level along the California Coast has risen almost eight inches in the last 100 years. That doesn't make for dramatic photos, and it's gradual enough that the average centenarion beach goer probably wouldn't notice it. But it's a significant amount anyway.

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/report.pdf


Asking beach bums whether they've noticed a rising sea level makes about as much sense as as disproving erosion by asking skiers if the peak behind their favorite ski lodge looks any shorter than it did a few years ago.

[mark775]

Hey, ******* - look at the pictures!

[troy2000]

Hey, ******* - look at the pictures!
What's to look at? They're friggen pictures. Are you claiming you can tell whether the average sea level is higher now than it was a hundred years ago by looking at those pictures? Especially considering we don't even know whether the pictures were taken at the same stage of the tide?

The difference between high tide and low tide at La Jolla is about five feet...*******. Think before you post.

[troy2000]

Here's the difference between low tide and high tide at Devereux Point, up the coast a ways. Obviously, looking a picture of the same place a hundred years ago wouldn't tell you a thing about average sea level, unless you knew exactly what stage of the tide it was taken during:

[hoytedow]

Hey, ******* - look at the pictures!Waste of breath. Erosion has nothing to do with global warming. It is just another term for weathering. Erosion built the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls and the Appalachian Mountains(which were once bigger than the Rockies). Pot erodes brain cells. Just say certain brain cells are "well-weathered".:P

[hoytedow]

What a drama queen!:pCharles Laughton

[troy2000]

Charles Laughton

He was a better actor, but I'm better looking. Admittedly, it's a pretty low bar...;)

[tugboat]

Pericles-
whatever is happening - things have changed. As you may have noticed-the winters here in ontario are much warmer. can you deny that?..if not maybe its because you live in London and not up north where i am from. we got maybe two good snowfalls of snow this winter compared to the usual 5 ft or more snow in Muskoka- and the great lakes i.e superior, is now at its lowest levels in recorded history!(of course I think there is a giant pipe sucking it into the states for their water loss- and how can you explain where trillions of gallons of water disappears to anyway?)
and although one could argue that the following is not a big enough sample- in the first twenty years of my life i had never seen a day of rain in january- now its almost common place- rain- thunderstorms in mid winter!- when its supposed to be snowing and minus 30!
no one can convince me that man can burn billions of tons of fuels- industrialize more in the last 100 years than in the 1900 preceding it and that we can let off into the atmosphere 100's of nuke firecrackers, and expect there to be no damage to the environment?? well id say thats nuts.
you may be right that its getting colder not hotter- i dont know. but i do know if thats true it aint natural and man has done damage.

[Boston]

Sloweddy

You are still being a weasel..............

and your still being a coward :D :D :D :D :D :D

I notice the deniers are still unwilling to retract any statements they might make that either fail to be accompanied by supporting data or who's supporting data is shown to be flawed.

hmmmmmm
they must be trying to "weasel" out of something again

or is it that they just are not able to live up to the expectations they would like to place on others

interesting double standard if you ask me

so how about it
what say we all agree to do exactly what just might begin moving this thread in the right direction
why dont we all agree to retract any statements not meeting the criteria stated

or maybe if not tell the group why you refuse to do so and instead sling mud rather than establish a few ground rules for our little discussion
or maybe this was never intended to be a honest discussion ( debate requires that there be an apposing view and there simply is no scientifically based apposing view of the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change ) but instead some kind of PR outlet for a few energy company employee's

[hoytedow]

and your still being a coward :D :D :D :D :D :D

I notice the deniers are still unwilling to retract any statements they might make that either fail to be accompanied by supporting data or who's supporting data is shown to be flawed.

hmmmmmm
they must be trying to "weasel" out of something again

or is it that they just are not able to live up to the expectations they would like to place on others

interesting double standard if you ask me

so how about it
what say we all agree to do exactly what just might begin moving this thread in the right direction
why dont we all agree to retract any statements not meeting the criteria stated

or maybe if not tell the group why you refuse to do so and instead sling mud rather than establish a few ground rules for our little discussion
or maybe this was never intended to be a honest discussion ( debate requires that there be an apposing view and there simply is no scientifically based apposing view of the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change ) but instead some kind of PR outlet for a few energy company employee'sI will retract nothing I have not already retracted. I still believe AGW is honker poo and it always will be so.

[Boston]

the real question is why you believe so and if those reasons stand up to scrutiny

if not then it might be reasonable to alter your position

after all academic honesty is what this present subject is really all about

are we going to all agree to retract any statements made that fail to meet the previously mentioned criteria

input not accompanied by corroborating data and input who's data presented as corroborating is shown to be false within the most up to data scientific literature

meaning literature that has been reviewed

seems completely reasonable to me

unless that is you guys are planing on clinging to your beliefs no mater how unfounded they might be within the science

cheers
B

[mark775]

Let's just say, Bos, that the evidence supporting AGW isn't as compelling as the evidence supporting grant-receivers and politicians having ulterior motives.
The science arguments are going nowhere - opposing sides are not even reading each other's posts! Will you give us that there is, at least, motive to fudge on the warmer side? Did Algore get super-wealthy on Veep salary? Everyone WANTS there to be an oil substitute so bad that oil is villified in every way. Fact is, there is no oil substitute and the one thing good about not drilling everywhere now is that we will have in-the-ground petroleum reserves to fall back on 100 years hence, if we survive the economics of taxing the crap out of production. Will you also give us that this may not be the best time to apply economic brakes?
Coal? - In ten years, twenty tops, we will have fusion and not much need for coal. Will you have us destroyed in the meantime and building dubious windmills to uglify the countryside? For national security, we shud be working on fusion - I'm all for it but keep burning the easy stuff in the meantime - It's about survival.

[troy2000]

Let's just say, Bos, that the evidence supporting AGW isn't as compelling as the evidence supporting grant-receivers and politicians having ulterior motives.
The science arguments are going nowhere - opposing sides are not even reading each other's posts! Will you give us that there is, at least, motive to fudge on the warmer side? Did Algore get super-wealthy on Veep salary? Everyone WANTS there to be an oil substitute so bad that oil is villified in every way. Fact is, there is no oil substitute and the one thing good about not drilling everywhere now is that we will have in-the-ground petroleum reserves to fall back on 100 years hence, if we survive the economics of taxing the crap out of production. Will you also give us that this may not be the best time to apply economic brakes?
Coal? - In ten years, twenty tops, we will have fusion and not much need for coal. Will you have us destroyed in the meantime and building dubious windmills to uglify the countryside? For national security, we shud be working on fusion - I'm all for it but keep burning the easy stuff in the meantime - It's about survival.

Although I don't necessarily agree with your economic arguments concerning the possible responses to climate change, I'll take them much more seriously than I will the blind denials that it's even happening. Even people who firmly believe AGW is real don't necessarily agree on how to combat it, or even on whether it's possible or practical to try.

Be they right or wrong, the arguments that some of the proposed cures may kill us faster than the disease can't be dismissed out out hand.

I do think you're hopelessly optimistic, when you say we'll have practical nuclear fission in ten or twenty years. Of course, that's one I'd love to be proven wrong on.

[alanrockwood]

...In ten years, twenty tops, we will have fusion and not much need for coal...

That is pretty much the funniest thing you have posted yet. You should make it part of your regular stand up comedy routine.

Anyone who has been around science very long knows the standing joke "Fusion power: it's only twenty years away. Always has been. Always will be." It's been that way as long as I can remember, and I am not a young man.

[alanrockwood]

...Will you have us destroyed in the meantime and building dubious windmills to uglify the countryside? ...

To me windmills are not particularly ugly. They might not be as pretty as virgin forest or plains, but they don't look too bad, and they look a lot better to my eye than a coal fired plant. Your opinion may of course differ.

By the way, Denmark generates approximately 20% of its electricity by wind power. Wind power is a significant part of how Denmark, formerly a massive importer of energy, has become a net exporter of energy.

[Marco1]

Here's the difference between low tide and high tide at Devereux Point, up the coast a ways. Obviously, looking a picture of the same place a hundred years ago wouldn't tell you a thing about average sea level, unless you knew exactly what stage of the tide it was taken during:
When that is true, it also true that if you live on the coast and the sea level is rising you are bound to notice. The highest point of the high tide is easy to identify most of the time.

My family has owned waterfront properties for the last 100 years in Italy, Argentina and Australia and when I can not personally account for more than 50, none of those properties have recorded any change in sea levels and they are all tidal not some inland river. How do I know? They all have jetties with steps that go down to the water. We know the tide by counting the steps that are submerged, and they are the same old steps every time, regualr as clockwork including the monthly king tide.

I don't deny that sea levels may change slowly either way be it up or down, and that land mass does exactly the same for many complicated reasons, but to extrapolate that it is due to me and my car and that we will all drown the day after tomorrow is OK for a movie but it does not go any further than fantasy.

[fasteddy106]

and your still being a coward :D :D :D :D :D :D

I notice the deniers are still unwilling to retract any statements they might make that either fail to be accompanied by supporting data or who's supporting data is shown to be flawed.

hmmmmmm
they must be trying to "weasel" out of something again

or is it that they just are not able to live up to the expectations they would like to place on others

interesting double standard if you ask me

so how about it
what say we all agree to do exactly what just might begin moving this thread in the right direction
why dont we all agree to retract any statements not meeting the criteria stated

or maybe if not tell the group why you refuse to do so and instead sling mud rather than establish a few ground rules for our little discussion
or maybe this was never intended to be a honest discussion ( debate requires that there be an apposing view and there simply is no scientifically based apposing view of the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change ) but instead some kind of PR outlet for a few energy company employee's



I have nothing that needs retracting. I haven't deliberately falsified and data, chopped off the end of sentences, superimposed one graphs results on top of another to produce a deceptive results, exaggerated and altered poll results or made endless unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks and finally didn't make up a story about a tin shed. After 7200+ posts this is hardly a little discussion and you still don't get to set the ground rules. The mud slinging is the result of you pompous arrogance throughout the entire thread. You have attempted since your first post to intimindate and ridicule any and all that disagree with you and make them leave the thread so you can be a big fish in a little pond. Every time you have been caught in a lie or distortion you resort to the type of tactic above to distract from your bad behavior. That is why you are.......................

[Marco1]

Who is John Galt?



John Galt is a fictional character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Although he is absent from much of the text, he is the subject of the novel's often repeated question, "Who is John Galt?", and the quest to discover the answer.

As the plot unfolds, Galt is acknowledged to be a creator and inventor who symbolizes the power of the individual capitalist. He serves as an idealistic counterpoint to the social and economic structure depicted in the novel. The depiction portrays a society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces the stifling mediocrity and egalitarianism of socialistic idealism. In this popular mass ideology, the industrialists of America were a metaphorical Atlas of Greek mythology, holding up the world, whom Galt convinces to "shrug," by refusing to lend their productive genius to the regime any longer.

Well now you know. :)

[Marco1]

Lies and more lies




Al Gore's Nine Lies

Written by Investor's Business Daily | 24 February 2010
newsweek gore

The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up.

We've not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses.

Perhaps he's off reading how scientists were forced to withdraw a study on a projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding two "technical" mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, allegedly confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sea levels would rise due to climate change. The IPCC put the rise at 59 centimeters by 2100. The Nature Geoscience study put it at up to 82 centimeters.

Many considered the study and the IPCC's estimates too conservative in their warnings. After all, Al Gore, in his award-winning opus, "An Inconvenient Truth," laughingly called a documentary, foretold an apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a 20-foot rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice caps "in the near future."

Now Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at England's University of Bristol, has formally retracted the study. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years," he said.

According to Siddall, "People make mistakes, and mistakes happen in science." They seem to be happening a lot lately, and more than just mistakes. We are talking about outright fraud, the deliberate manipulation and destruction of data.

Last November, Al Gore was hailed by Newsweek as "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man."

Since then we and he have been given much to think about, starting with the damning e-mails from researchers associated with the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain. The e-mails revealed an organized attempt to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, to manipulate data to fit preconceived conclusions, and to discredit and shun reputable skeptics.

A key finding of the IPCC, which along with Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, was revealed last month to be utterly bogus. The IPCC claimed glaciers in the Himalayas would likely disappear by 2035. The only thing they had to back it up was a 1999 non-peer reviewed article in an Indian mass-market science magazine.

It's been revealed that researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have been systematically eliminating weather stations, with a clear bias toward removing colder latitude and altitude locations. The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35, with only one station used by the NOAA as a temperature gauge for Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The past is prologue. Two years ago, Justice Michael Burton of London's High Court ruled Gore's film could be shown in British schools only if material explaining its errors were included in the curriculum. Burton documented nine significant errors in Gore's film and wrote that some of Gore's claims arose from "alarmism and exaggeration."

The first error Gore made, according to Burton, was in his apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a rise in sea levels caused by melting polar ice caps. Burton wrote that Gore's predicted 20-foot rise could occur "only after, and over, millennia" and to suggest otherwise "is not in line with the scientific consensus."

One by one, Gore's prophecies of doom and those of the climate charlatans he inspired are being exposed as the work of con artists. From the CRU to the IPCC, the climate dominoes are falling one by one. His silence speaks volumes.

Goodnight, Mr. Gore, wherever you are.

[Marco1]

Now here is a nice boat to tie up at my jetty

http://www.tradingdock.org/user_images/4407220.jpg

[fasteddy106]

Who is John Galt?



Well now you know. :)

Ah Marco, you gave it away. :( That's ok, I have had that question there for quite a while in my signature wondering if anyone would pick up on it. Obviously you did. Have you read the book? The similarities to todays society are striking. Amazing how she could have been so accurate about the evolution of the entitlement class so many years ago and the victim class mentality.

The question itself though is more of a "who knows" or "that's the way it is" type of statement that expresses the futility of the populace in the face of an omnipotent government and bureaucracy that seeks to impose itself in every facet of society and industry. I first read the book in the early 70's when I was in Y.A.F. during my college years. I still have a copy of the Sharon Statement somewhere. It is quite telling how many of the group that gathered at Buckleys home moved on to be players in the political process and are still active today.

I think it is time to re-read the book to get motivated for 2012 to help remove the 2 bit provincial that now occupies the White House

[mark775]

http://io9.com/5545910/mammoth-farts-could-have-stopped-the-ice-age-12000-years-ago?skyline=true&s=i - Now, here's real science!

Easy to dream/difficult to contain plasma sustained fusion has been half attempted since the fifties. Granted, The people getting money for this have the same motivation as people getting grants for AGW "research", but I believe them when they are all saying two, three, four years to sustained reaction in test - then construct a plant. A research facility in Cali and one in Korea have promise with lazer fusion (I take that back. I think the one in Korea uses Z-pinch) - several reactions per minute equals net gain. Right now they are getting one. The (magnetically contained) plasma reactions are going to prove slippery, I think but a lot of money is being thrown at it. Who knows? Very easy for an ******* with a little knowledge to poopoo a notion based upon failures in Buck Rogers era tech but many said atomic bombs couldn't be done, some even said that CERN would swallow the world... I repeat, a four year chemistry degree is not much different than liberal arts or whatever - please don't consider yourself "a scientist" and do realise that your off-the-cuff joke and opinion about fusion carries NO weight. May I recommend some motivational material that that will also open your eyes to possibilities beyond windmills? http://www.feynmanlectures.info/ http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-Complete-Collection/dp/0738203823 I have listened to the Feynman lectures scores of times while driving and still learn something every time. One cannot listen to this man and conclude "why bother?" Besides, it really is better than listening to your Garfunkle, "best of".

[Marco1]

Those type of book and the conspiratorial essence of politics in general make me think every time about the class war that in a more or less apparent form rages around us.

If you look back in history after you strip the facade, all you find is personal agendas that combine and tangle with other personal agendas that run into movements yet always with the ultimate goal of...yet another personal agenda.

Politics, political opinions, political parties, movements of any colour or description, including this shameless con called global warming, are ultimately motivated, created, pushed, supported, propagated by personal motives that can be ultimately traced back to values and anti values acquired probably before 10. We humans are very predictable and the mechanism of our thoughts follows patterns and laws that can be fascinating.

Yes, there are political flags that the masses like, and there are others that the intellectuals like better, then there are flags that are created for others to follow whilst we go in the opposite direction, and then there are those with no flag who sit on the sidewalk and enjoy the view.
I like that flag the best.

But that is just me.

[Marco1]

http://io9.com/5545910/mammoth-farts-could-have-stopped-the-ice-age-12000-years-ago?skyline=true&s=i - Now, here's real science!

Easy to dream/difficult to contain plasma sustained fusion has been half attempted since the fifties. Granted, The people getting money for this have the same motivation as people getting grants for AGW "research", but I believe them when they are all saying two, three, four years to sustained reaction in test - then construct a plant. A research facility in Cali and one in Korea have promise with lazer fusion (I take that back. I think the one in Korea uses Z-pinch) - several reactions per minute equals net gain. Right now they are getting one. The (magnetically contained) plasma reactions are going to prove slippery, I think but a lot of money is being thrown at it. Who knows? Very easy for an ******* with a little knowledge to poopoo a notion based upon failures in Buck Rogers era tech but many said atomic bombs couldn't be done, some even said that CERN would swallow the world... I repeat, a four year chemistry degree is not much different than liberal arts or whatever - please don't consider yourself "a scientist" and do realise that your off-the-cuff joke and opinion about fusion carries NO weight. May I recommend some motivational material that that will also open your eyes to possibilities beyond windmills? http://www.feynmanlectures.info/ http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-Complete-Collection/dp/0738203823 I have listened to the Feynman lectures scores of times while driving and still learn something every time. One cannot listen to this man and conclude "why bother?" Besides, it really is better than listening to your Garfunkle, "best of".

Yes I read that about the big mega farts. Sounds neat but that story has been used both ways, there was even one claiming that a meteorite had ignited all the mega farts and blown up the dinosaurs to kingdom kong. Go figure.

As for alternative sources of energy, I don't think that the greens are interested in REAL sources of clean energy. In fact they would like most of us to just die to make room for them. THe last thing they want is cheaper or god forbid, free energy. Can you imagine all those meat eaters polluting mother earth with cheap airconditioners? We can not have that, stick to usless solar and wind crap and pretend you care.

Well that is my take anyway.

[mark775]

Only our side even gets Atlas Shrugged. The opposition doesn't typically have the innate curiosity to bother retreiving information. The first I heard of the book was when our world was seriously getting upheaved when Obama got elected. It shud be required reading in our schools instead of as the California Teachers Association is currently supporting, that history textbooks be rewritten to "include and highlight homosexual and transsexual historical figures and promote same sex parenting" or the standard communist indoctrination by Animal Farm.

[mark775]

"I don't think that the greens are interested in REAL sources of clean energy" - of course not. Their agenda includes a power grab and nearly free energy is not conducive to them holding power. Well, over here it is getting pretty bad - I heard today that now only 42% of the U.S. income is privately derived. SS, WIC, Welfare, etc., is now greater than the income of people with jobs. In this, the F'er in our Whitehouse is unparalleled in his success. Even as the rest of the world is going the other way, we are passing laws, today even, taking our money and freedom (today, a $165 Billion bill was presented by Senator Bob Casey, (D-Pa.), to assure that union members get a bailout of their pensions at the expense of our children's future).

[Boston]

Let's just say, Bos, that the evidence supporting AGW isn't as compelling as the evidence supporting grant-receivers and politicians having ulterior motives.
The science arguments are going nowhere - opposing sides are not even reading each other's posts! Will you give us that there is, at least, motive to fudge on the warmer side? Did Algore get super-wealthy on Veep salary? Everyone WANTS there to be an oil substitute so bad that oil is villified in every way. Fact is, there is no oil substitute and the one thing good about not drilling everywhere now is that we will have in-the-ground petroleum reserves to fall back on 100 years hence, if we survive the economics of taxing the crap out of production. Will you also give us that this may not be the best time to apply economic brakes?
Coal? - In ten years, twenty tops, we will have fusion and not much need for coal. Will you have us destroyed in the meantime and building dubious windmills to uglify the countryside? For national security, we shud be working on fusion - I'm all for it but keep burning the easy stuff in the meantime - It's about survival.

interesting post Mark

ok you might be surprised how much of this I do actually agree with

I think we all know by now how I feel about these shysters called politicians and the evidence of there thievery is everywhere. No argument there. Those rat bastards manage to turn everything into a revenue opportunity and to them the problem of climate change is just another opportunity to screw the public; doesn't mean that AGCC isn't happening, just means that those idiots in orifice have there heads up there asses.

Grants are generally blind grants and as such do not influence the outcome of the research, doesn't mean that some folks dont go into it without preconceived ideas but still the grant process is adequate in disseminating funds to support pure research. I suspect if you had ever applied for a grant you would understand more about the process.

motive to fudge on the warmer side ?

I'd have to disagree with that one
what could be the motive possibly be other than from some fool politician who wants to tax carbon as if that's going to make a difference. I've already made my position clear on an immediate reduction in taxes. These idiots in gov survived just fine long before income and sales tax and there is absolutely no excuse for there thievery.

I do however see a strong motivator on the side of the oil and gas industry to continue the monumental profits rolling in on the sale of every drop of fossil fuel they can produce tax or no tax; they just pas it on anyway and still rake in billions every day

Al Gore was already stinkin rich from bilking the public as a politician, his stance on AGCC is secondary to his participation in racketeering in orifice

yes everyone wants there to be an oil substitute. Except the oil and gas industry that is who is working hard to prevent meaningful change.

there need be no economic brakes, we should be steam rolling the energy industry with applied technologies and forcing our way forward with things like celulitic alcohol and biodiesel. Its the tax man who is slowing both those perfectly viable alternatives down not the availability of the technology. The EV-1 was on the road 25 years ago and sold out everywhere it was available, so why did the auto manufactures take it off the market. Pressure from above is why, oil and gas industry didn't want the competition.

please see the video series "who killed the electric car"

there need be no waiting for better tec as we have adequate technologies now to make a significant dent in our fossil fuels consumption

Fussion in twenty years ?

the Tokomac engine has been around for 50 years and I think running in smaller versions for the last 30 ( I think I haven't looked into that one in about 30 years )
we have fusion energy its just the money to build the system is not available
every time researchers create a new element they generally fused something together.

your right that its not ready for production but we have had the tec for a long time just sitting there not having any money to develop it
after all the fission industry was a huge money looser.

I'm not much into wind mills, vertical turbines have a lot of advantaged over the traditional design even if they are a tad less efficient but still tide power is far more economical and more efficient than either, its also not the eye sore that hundreds of feet tall wind mills are.

funny thing is there is plenty of energy all around us all the time. Its just being allowed to capture and use it is hyperegulated through the lobbying practices of the energy industry and the corruption of the politicians

anyway you raise a lot of good points though and it just seems that a little of that free enterprise the republocrats are always talking about would go a long way right about now. Course thats all just rhetoric and you are 100% right about those crooks just using any excuse they can think of as another tax fraud.

ok I gotta get to work

have a great day folks
B

[troy2000]

Lies and more lies

Talk about a biased article.

I agree predicting a twenty foot rise in the near future seems to be wild exaggeration.

The emails are hardly "damning," and there was no organized effort to "hide the decline." That's been gone over time after time; it's based on one sentence from one email out of tens of thousands of them.

The mistake about the Himalyan glaciers was almost a throw-away line in the IPCC's report, not "a key finding."

Investor's Business Daily and American Thinker are forwarding claims made by meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo and computer programmer Michael Smith that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have "cherry-picked" the locations of weather observation stations in order to bias their temperature records in favor of warmer temperatures and thus produce data that supports the existence of global climate change. But climate experts have stated that Smith and D'Aleo's claims are flawed and based on an inaccurate understanding of how global temperature data is calculated and compiled.

I'm not going to rehash the entire argument for and against D''Aleo and Smith's claims; there's a pretty good summary of both positions at mediamatters. But basically, it boils down to the fact that the NOAA is keeping track of trends at each individual station. It doesn't simply add up recorded temperatures at all the stations, then divide by the number of stations to get an average.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/201001270042

[alanrockwood]

[url]http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/open-discussion/open-discussion/... please don't consider yourself "a scientist" ....

Actually Mark, I am a scientist. I have a PhD in physical chemistry, and I make my living as a scientist working as a faculty member at a medical school and as director of a mass spectrometry facility in a clinical testing lab. I have published over 80 scientific papers in peer reviewed journals in a range of journals and on a range of topics (physical chemistry, clinical chemistry, physics, mass spectrometry, and analytical chemistry,), and I have 14 patents. In a few minutes I will be leaving to chair a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry.

So, don't tell me I should not consider myself a scientist.

[masrapido]

So, here's the thing. A herd of mamooths influenced the climate in the past.

Then they all moved in here and continued to fart, just because they can. And then the conservatives were all happy.

Life in delusion...ahhh, what a refreshing view on life. It's all flowers and beautiful sunsets, even when the boat is sinking fast.

Of course, there's also a lot of pseudo-science involved, but then, that comes as a given in the world where the conservatives think they know it all, and Marx and Engels forbid you are to even think differently.

We'll blast your sorry arse with our democratically build depleted uranium, you creep.

(my take on an exchange between sloweddy, marc and marko)

(hope no one gets offended by the truth... 'koz anglos tend to start crying when that happens. weeping, in fact...)

[troy2000]

Only our side even gets Atlas Shrugged. The opposition doesn't typically have the innate curiosity to bother retreiving information. The first I heard of the book was when our world was seriously getting upheaved when Obama got elected. It shud be required reading in our schools instead of as the California Teachers Association is currently supporting, that history textbooks be rewritten to "include and highlight homosexual and transsexual historical figures and promote same sex parenting" or the standard communist indoctrination by Animal Farm."Our side?" Right there is your basic problem, along with that of most of the climate change deniers in this thread: you look at climate change as the focus of a cultural war, instead of as a scientific question. Anyone who believes it's happening must also believe in the gay/liberal agenda and hate America. With that mindset, anyone who says anything at all you disagree with becomes The Enemy, to be attacked and destroyed.

Look at the rabid attacks on Alan, who's actually a real scientist instead of an internet expert. There are people on here telling him how ignorant and biased he is, and piling on personal insults, simply because what he's saying doesn't match their preconceived notions. How stupid is that?

[fasteddy106]

Perfect example of why hallucinagens are illegal -- - - OOPS - THIS REPLY WAS MEANT FOR MISSY LOCO

[dskira]

So, here's the thing. A herd of mamooths influenced the climate in the past.

Then they all moved in here and continued to fart, just because they can. And then the conservatives were all happy.

Life in delusion...ahhh, what a refreshing view on life. It's all flowers and beautiful sunsets, even when the boat is sinking fast.

Of course, there's also a lot of pseudo-science involved, but then, that comes as a given in the world where the conservatives think they know it all, and Marx and Engels forbid you are to even think differently.

We'll blast your sorry arse with our democratically build depleted uranium, you creep.

(my take on an exchange between sloweddy, marc and marko)

(hope no one gets offended by the truth... 'koz anglos tend to start crying when that happens. weeping, in fact...)


Don't to worry nobody will be offended when you give your opinion in a nice way. (Beside you can't refrain yourself about the anglos, too bad, you almost pass the exam!) And I love the mammoths farting all the way in the planet hearth.
The vision of Marx was mostly the pyramidal way the market will go. By the way an interesting fact is that General Dwight Eisenhower was warning of the same when he left office. Read his speach, it is enlightning.
I suppose intelligent people what ever the politic view the have, make the same assessment.
Fiat predicted that in the very near future only five cars company will be existing. We have only one company controlling the paper pulp and one company controlling the banana's market by having engineered fruit without pits to be replanted by other.
As for the sugar, same story. wait for the soy, it is next to be completely controlled by one company.
Not talking about diamons, which is overprice and not that rare as they want to make us beleive. The real price will be around the tourmaline price.
But you know what? I don't care. These big conspiracy, some true some false,
It is not my business, and what do other is not my problem. I just don't want people killing each other on the name of God.
That I don't like, but who cares if I like it or not.
God gave me peace and happiness late in my life, when I understood how ***** I was. Rest assure I didn't have a revelation, just my relation with God was always rocky, to say the least.
I know you hate this kind of discussion, but it is who I am.
You are a clever man, with the blood boiling.
Daniel

[troy2000]

Perfect example of why hallucinagens are illegal

Because they induce people to believe scientists, instead of internet bs artists? In that case, they should be made not only legal, but mandatory.

edit: Reply made before you clarified who you were talking to/about...

[dskira]

So, here's the thing. A herd of mamooths influenced the climate in the past.

Then they all moved in here and continued to fart, just because they can. And then the conservatives were all happy.

Life in delusion...ahhh, what a refreshing view on life. It's all flowers and beautiful sunsets, even when the boat is sinking fast.

Of course, there's also a lot of pseudo-science involved, but then, that comes as a given in the world where the conservatives think they know it all, and Marx and Engels forbid you are to even think differently.

We'll blast your sorry arse with our democratically build depleted uranium, you creep.

(my take on an exchange between sloweddy, marc and marko)

(hope no one gets offended by the truth... 'koz anglos tend to start crying when that happens. weeping, in fact...)


Don't to worry nobody will be offended when you give your opinion in a nice way. ( To bad you can't refrain yourself about the anglos, you almost pass the test) And I love the mammoths farting all the way in the planet hearth.
The vision of Marx was mostly the pyramidal way the market will go. By the way an interesting fact is that General Dwight Eisenhower was warning of the same when he left office. Read his speach, it is enlightning.
I suppose intelligent people what ever the politic view the have, make the same assessment.
Fiat predicted that in the very near future only five cars company will be existing. We have only one company controlling the paper pulp and one company controlling the banana's market by having engineered fruit without pits to be replanted by other.
As for the sugar, same story. wait for the soy, it is next to be completely controlled by one company.
Not talking about diamons, which is overprice and not that rare as they want to make us beleive. The real price will be around the tourmaline price.
But you know what? I don't care. These big conspiracy, some true some false,
It is not my business, and what do other is not my problem. I just don't want people killing each other on the name of God.
That I don't like, but who cares if I like it or not.
God gave me peace and happiness late in my life, when I understood how ***** I was. Rest assure I didn't have a revelation, just my relation with God was always rocky, to say the least.
I know you hate this kind of discussion, but it is who I am.
You are a clever man, with the blood boiling.
Daniel

[troy2000]

I repeat, a four year chemistry degree is not much different than liberal arts or whatever - please don't consider yourself "a scientist" and do realise that your off-the-cuff joke and opinion about fusion carries NO weight. May I recommend some motivational material that that will also open your eyes to possibilities beyond windmills?
Actually Marco, I am a scientist. I have a PhD in physical chemistry, and I make my living as a scientist working as a faculty member at a medical school and as director of a mass spectrometry facility in a clinical testing lab. I have published over 80 scientific papers in peer reviewed journals in a range of journals and on a range of topics (physical chemistry, clinical chemistry, physics, mass spectrometry, and analytical chemistry,), and I have 14 patents. In a few minutes I will be leaving to chair a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry.

So, don't tell me I should not consider myself a scientist.

I should have finished reading all the posts before making my last ones. Seeing Mark try to be condescending towards someone who actually knows WTF he's talking about, and get his whang slapped in the dirt for it, almost made me spit my coffee laughing.

For the record, I studied up on Alan when he first started posting. He's for real.

[fasteddy106]

"Our side?" Right there is your basic problem, along with that of most of the climate change deniers in this thread: you look at climate change as the focus of a cultural war, instead of as a scientific question. Anyone who believes it's happening must also believe in the gay/liberal agenda and hate America. With that mindset, anyone who says anything at all you disagree with becomes The Enemy, to be attacked and destroyed.

Look at the rabid attacks on Alan, who's actually a real scientist instead of an internet expert. There are people on here telling him how ignorant and biased he is, and piling on personal insults, simply because what he's saying doesn't match their preconceived notions. How stupid is that?

Indeed that is stupid, and your hostility towards any and all over any issue that doesn't march lockstep with your views doesn't help either. In case you haven't noticed I'm only obnoxious with those who pretend knowledge they don't have, are condescending towards those with different views, and have a tendency to call people stupid.

Why don't we start again by agreeing that we can have different views, that as Phil Jones say, "the debate is not over".

I promise to stop calling you a left wing elitist, how's that for a start. But Boston is still fair game, sorry, his offenses are far too egregious to let pass.

[troy2000]

Indeed that is stupid, and your hostility towards any and all over any issue that doesn't march lockstep with your views doesn't help either. In case you haven't noticed I'm only obnoxious with those who pretend knowledge they don't have, are condescending towards those with different views, and have a tendency to call people stupid.

Why don't we start again by agreeing that we can have different views, that as Phil Jones say, "the debate is not over".

I promise to stop calling you a left wing elitist, how's that for a start. But Boston is still fair game, sorry, his offenses are far too egregious to let pass.
Fair enough; I'll try to mind my manners. But it's still open season on Mark, too. As you put it, his offenses are far too egregious to let pass.

[tugboat]

wow 483 pages of opinions- speculations -arguments and counter arguments-
man! this whole thread is starting to become one super-sized epistemilogical discussion...egad!
it could go on forever...
this is why i love boats--its one of the only "real" things I personally can make sense of.

I state-
"there is no objective reality- only subjective truth"

has anyone actually found "universal" truths on this thread yet?????

[dskira]

wow 483 pages of opinions- speculations -arguments and counter arguments-
man! this whole thread is starting to become one super-sized epistemilogical discussion...egad!
it could go on forever...
this is why i love boats--its one of the only "real" things I personally can make sense of.

I state-
"there is no objective reality- only subjective truth"

has anyone actually found "universal" truths on this thread yet?????

Quite a nice thread don't you think? It's going to the Guinness book :)
I think I allready said tha joke, sorry.:(
What is truth is a thread by itself. Start one will see where it goes
Daniel

[tugboat]

Daniel--(laugh) its a good idea but I think ill pass-- im going to head off to a few of my older threads and post a couple things...

Cheers!

[mark775]

Okay, Wood says he has more school than is made apparent by his views and he is a faculty member. My favorite. Marco is a different person than to whom he aimed his post.
Sorry you spit your vente non-fat, decaf, soy caramel latte, two blue packs, Troy (with lowfat whipped cream, of course, and "not so many sprinkles today, Mario") - that **** is expensive! Absolutely, politics, AGW views, everything is interconnected. A lot of homos have good jobs and are fiscally conservative, BTW, but the "get-in-your-face" types are almost invariably "progressives". I have no particular problem with race nor orientation - I just do not like special priveledges FOR ANYONE and it is a sad thing to see traditional family values eroded, as we watch.

[masrapido]

Don't to worry nobody will be offended when you give your opinion in a nice way. ( To bad you can't refrain yourself about the anglos, you almost pass the test) And I love the mammoths farting all the way in the planet hearth.
The vision of Marx was mostly the pyramidal way the market will go. By the way an interesting fact is that General Dwight Eisenhower was warning of the same when he left office. Read his speach, it is enlightning.
I suppose intelligent people what ever the politic view the have, make the same assessment.
Fiat predicted that in the very near future only five cars company will be existing. We have only one company controlling the paper pulp and one company controlling the banana's market by having engineered fruit without pits to be replanted by other.
As for the sugar, same story. wait for the soy, it is next to be completely controlled by one company.
Not talking about diamons, which is overprice and not that rare as they want to make us beleive. The real price will be around the tourmaline price.
But you know what? I don't care. These big conspiracy, some true some false,
It is not my business, and what do other is not my problem. I just don't want people killing each other on the name of God.
That I don't like, but who cares if I like it or not.
God gave me peace and happiness late in my life, when I understood how ***** I was. Rest assure I didn't have a revelation, just my relation with God was always rocky, to say the least.
I know you hate this kind of discussion, but it is who I am.
You are a clever man, with the blood boiling.
Daniel

Hola Daniel. long time no write.

AN ineresting take on Marx. Pyramidal economy...? Not sure about that.

I read him as I read Bible: to find the failures, errors, inconsistencies. Not to find a confirmation of my own errors and ignorance.

That is a good thing that comes with atheism. You do not believe anything said by anyone. You look for evidence that confirms/explains something someone is telling you it is happening.

Unlike the bible, I couldn't falter Marx. His economic theories and predictions all came to life. In doing so, they ceased to be just theories. Now there are many real life economic data that confirm what he was saying,

But in the last message I simply used him in the context where a christian would mention god. (god forbid - Marx forbid)

Can't be a hypocrite and use a religious reference in a colloquial context when I am not religious.

And that about the mammoths was just in the news. Some british scientists analysed data and came to a conclusion that mammoth herds were big enough to produce enough methane to actually induce increase in atmospheric temperature.

The significance of that is that, IF it is true, it confirms that the current size of the livestock could have a similar influence too. Just Argentina has about 5 million of cows, for example.

That's a lot of farting. And as we know, methane is almost 20 times (certainly more than 10) stronger than CO2 as a glasshouse gas.

Then there are 6 billion humans who contribute to methane concentration in the air, and mythbusters show demonstrated that cow's poo can produce a lot more of it. They inflated a car's inner tube with about ten kilos of the poo and then fired up a lawnmower with the gas from the tube.

So, I couldn't but notice some symmetries and metaphoras between mammoths, farting, raising temps, extinction and some parts/contributions in the thread...

[mark775]

God is capitalized, you heathen.

[troy2000]

Okay, Wood says he has more school than is made apparent by his views and he is a faculty member. My favorite. Marco is a different person than to whom he aimed his post.You're completely unqualified to judge Alan's scientific credentials, Mark. Why do you pretend otherwise?

And he probably mixed up the names because you all sound so much alike, when you're trying to tangle with real science.:)
Sorry you spit your vente non-fat, decaf, soy caramel latte, two blue packs, Troy (with lowfat whipped cream, of course, and "not so many sprinkles today, Mario") - that **** is expensive!I'll take your word for what that sort of stuff costs; you seem to be an expert on "foo-foo coffee," as someone on another forum refers to it. Personally, I've only been in a Starbucks twice in my life. Absolutely, politics, AGW views, everything is interconnected. A lot of homos have good jobs and are fiscally conservative, BTW, but the "get-in-your-face" types are almost invariably "progressives". I have no particular problem with race nor orientation - I just do not like special priveledges FOR ANYONE and it is a sad thing to see traditional family values eroded, as we watch.
Unfortunately, scientific reality is independent of your belief systems. No matter how 'interconnected' you think everything is, believing as hard as you can won't move an electron one whit out of its path, or lower the temperature of the seas a single degree.

As far as race and sexual orientation go, you're the one who broached both subjects. And it's been my experience that when people go out of their way to assure me they aren't prejudiced, it's usually because they are.

edit: What the heck is a "blue pack"?

[hoytedow]

anglos?

[troy2000]

anglos?If you're guessing what blue packs are, I don't think so. Mark used the term while he was showing us how to order coffee at Starbucks. Maybe he meant whichever artificial sweetener it is that comes in little blue packets, as opposed to the pink ones?

[dskira]

As far as race and sexual orientation go, you're the one who broached both subjects. And it's been my experience that when people go out of their way to assure me they aren't prejudiced, it's usually because they are.


It's funny you mention that.
A die heart racist will always start by: But my best friend is...and the name of a minority or other type of religion.
And then he will generalise. Racism is the most dangerous form of fear and ignorance. War are often due to racism

Due to family situation I was switched from school to school depending. The Jesuite it was simple, but the other it was realy enlightning. Discovering a newworld. One of my teacher told us: Race do not exist, period. (He always finished his sentence by: period) In the class we had all the representation of the people of the planete, from India to Argentina. We look at each other, and we all laugh, and we here so happy. It was so simple. Kids do not care, kids are open, kids know the truth, until the society try to put them in the mold.
I will remember this teacher for my life, because of this simple phrase: Race do not exist.
Just because of an obscure teacher. He was a great and wise man.
May God take care of him. And races do not exist. Period.
Please keep the teacher alive.
Daniel

[hoytedow]

wow 483 pages of opinions- speculations -arguments and counter arguments-
man! this whole thread is starting to become one super-sized epistemilogical discussion...egad!
it could go on forever...
this is why i love boats--its one of the only "real" things I personally can make sense of.

I state-
"there is no objective reality- only subjective truth"

has anyone actually found "universal" truths on this thread yet?????Universal truth.: Some of us are weasels. The problem is deciding which of us are the weasels.

[mark775]

Yes. Equal, I believe it is called. I tried to sound like people do in the foofoo coffee shops - I actually drank coke with the Equal when that's what my first ex bought. I discovered that I am allergic and get vicious headaches from this sweet chemical. I now don't even drink a soda unless it's in Mexico because whatever sweetener other than sugar just doesn't work (In Mex, they still use sugar - stop by a tienda and remember what coke tasted like when you were a kid - some import the "Real Thing").
Daniel, I cannot think of a war that was because of racism. I can think of many where the opponent race was villified to make it easier for the soldiers to kill or justify the war to the people. Wars are ALWAYS about power - even when they are about religion. I grew up practically not even knowing racism still existed - I thought it was pretty much over with the Wallace era -
"I think what a lot of white southerners saw [by the 1970s] is that black folks aren't so bad, but liberals are," as Harvard political philosopher Harvey Mansfield put it, conveying the conservative perspective." - Things havn't changed that I see. The conservative party has always been more about equality and tho one can always point out atypical racists, only in the Democrat Party can a pervasive, insiduous use of race be found. I can hardly believe that an educated black man would prefer to see fellows held down by a cycle of state dependence and this happening is the surest proof that power, not race is the prime motivator. Anyway, there is a large percentage of blacks that I find disagreeable but in no way do I judge them on the color of their skin. As you are apt to put it, "I have a good friend who is black" and he also finds it quite hypocritical of some to espouse that they don't notice that there is a higher percentage of violent crime in minorities. If the dude looks like a gangster, there is definately a higher probability that he is a gangster. It's more about how they carry themseves and act but I profile and think it would be foolish not to. Hell, I am married to a Mexican and have two kids with her but wouldn't dream of bumping into a shaved head Mexican with MS13 and teardrop tattoos - am I racist? I think that if we shot to kill people crossing the border illegally, there would be no need for a fence after the second crossing. Does THAT make me a racist even tho it would save many lives?
In general, I believe that people spout off and say racist things when they get angry but you'll actually find few people (outside of the Democrat party) that would prefer to keep the downtrodden...downtrodden. "Things go better with...(fairness)"

[troy2000]

Universal truth.: Some of us are weasels. The problem is deciding which of us are the weasels.
If you've ever watched Roger Rabbit, the answer should be obvious: the ones who die laughing....:D

[troy2000]

Yes. Equal, I believe it is called. I tried to sound like people do in the foofoo coffee shops - I actually drank coke with the Equal when that's what my first ex bought. I discovered that I am allergic and get vicious headaches from this sweet chemical. I now don't even drink a soda unless it's in Mexico because whatever sweetener other than sugar just doesn't work (In Mex, they still use sugar - stop by a tienda and remember what coke tasted like when you were a kid - some import the "Real Thing").
Daniel, I cannot think of a war that was because of racism. I can think of many where the opponent race was villified to make it easier for the soldiers to kill or justify the war to the people. Wars are ALWAYS about power - even when they are about religion. I grew up practically not even knowing racism still existed - I thought it was pretty much over with the Wallace era -
"I think what a lot of white southerners saw [by the 1970s] is that black folks aren't so bad, but liberals are," as Harvard political philosopher Harvey Mansfield put it, conveying the conservative perspective." - Things havn't changed that I see. The conservative party has always been more about equality and tho one can always point out atypical racists, only in the Democrat Party can a pervasive, insiduous use of race be found. I can hardly believe that an educated black man would prefer to see fellows held down by a cycle of state dependence and this happening is the surest proof that power, not race is the prime motivator. Anyway, there is a large percentage of blacks that I find disagreeable but in no way do I judge them on the color of their skin. As you are apt to put it, "I have a good friend who is black" and he also finds it quite hypocritical of some to espouse that they don't notice that there is a higher percentage of violent crime in minorities. If the dude looks like a gangster, there is definately a higher probability that he is a gangster. It's more about how they carry themseves and act but I profile and think it would be foolish not to. Hell, I am married to a Mexican and have two kids with her but wouldn't dream of bumping into a shaved head Mexican with MS13 and teardrop tattoos - am I racist? I think that if we shot to kill people crossing the border illegally, there would be no need for a fence after the second crossing. Does THAT make me a racist even tho it would save many lives?
In general, I believe that people spout off and say racist things when they get angry but you'll actually find few people (outside of the Democrat party) that would prefer to keep the downtrodden...downtrodden. "Things go better with...(fairness)"

So it's the Democrats who are the real racists? I see.

Then please explain why after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the entire white South steadily and almost completely turned into a Republican stronghold for almost two generations, after hating the Party of Lincoln for a solid hundred years after the Civil War (hereby more than vindicating LBJ's comment after signing the Act, that "we have lost the South for a generation").

Explain why Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and other racist politicians switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in 1964.

Here's the biggie: explain why a solid majority of blacks still vote Democratic. And be very, very careful with your reply; you certainly wouldn't want to give me a racist, condescending answer....;)

edit: personally, I don't think today's Republican Party as a whole is racist, in spite of the history lesson; I went through that mostly to show how ridiculous it is to single out one party as racist. I don't hold Republicans responsible for the sins of the 60's, any more than I hold Democrats responsible for the sins of the 1800's. But I will say that white racists today are much more likely to consider themselves Republicans than Democrats. The Republican Party establishment doesn't agree with them, and isn't particularly interested in claiming them....but they'll take the votes anyway.

[mark775]

You picked bad examples of racists, ye of little history knowledge - all Dems. Strom Thurmond switched because he was renouncing his racist, Democratic past. By 1972 the Democratic Party in North Carolina was deeply split over the issue of race. Senator B. Everett Jordan, a three-term incumbent and longtime defender of segregation, was challenged for the Democratic nomination by Congressman Nick Galifianakis, who won a bitter primary fight with the support of many newly registered black voters. Jesse Helms switched parties, sought the Republican nomination to escape the newly registered black block, took his voters with him, and became the first Republican ever to win a Senate race in North Carolina. Former Democrats, many motivated by white racism, provided his 54-46 percent margin.
"A solid majority of blacks still vote Democratic" because...well, because Bruce Bartlett can explain it with more acrity than I. Try http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/023060062X/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books or Cliff notes (an interview by Jamie Glazov), http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952363/posts . In short, when you say "white racists today are much more likely to consider themselves Republicans than Democrats" you are out of your rattlesnake lovin' mind. Republicans sometimes get heavy on the religion but, in general, there has never, ever, in the history of the world, been a fairer, less racist block than today's conservatives. I tend to think "Tea Party" rather than Republican, anyway, as it symbolizes freedom, equal rights more than just "don't abort babies". The way I see it, we can all argue about religious tenets later. What we need to do now is insure freedom for our children and stop the bleeding caused by politicians spending more money than we can feed them... for WHATEVER reason (corruption, do-gooding, horse-trading, etc.) Hang Charley Rangle and Harry Reid. Put Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi behind bars. Any Rep. that runs on "values" and doesn't have any - likewise. Barack Obama shud be impeached for implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy. Raum Emmanual will likely be indicted for bribing Sestak not to run against Arlan Sphincter. If it can be shown that Obama knew about this, we've got him, too, the racist bastard.
Take a free punch... I'm sick of dominating this thread with this ****. My only point was that it is all tied together and it all comes down to "power". AGW, hand-outs, whatever.

[alanrockwood]

Okay, Wood says he has more school than is made apparent by his views and he is a faculty member. My favorite. Marco is a different person than to whom he aimed his post.
Sorry you spit your vente non-fat, decaf, soy caramel latte, two blue packs, Troy (with lowfat whipped cream, of course, and "not so many sprinkles today, Mario") - that **** is expensive! Absolutely, politics, AGW views, everything is interconnected. A lot of homos have good jobs and are fiscally conservative, BTW, but the "get-in-your-face" types are almost invariably "progressives". I have no particular problem with race nor orientation - I just do not like special priveledges FOR ANYONE and it is a sad thing to see traditional family values eroded, as we watch.

Sorry for the name error. I have gone back and corrected it.

[mark775]

NP. For However much I disagree with you...you seem ( edit; SEEMED) to be level-headed. thx.

[alanrockwood]

... I repeat, a four year chemistry degree is not much different than liberal arts or whatever...

Maybe you're right. Maybe your degree (was it finance?) is not much different from a chemistry degree. If so it didn't show in your response to the quiz questions on carbonate chemistry and Henry's law.

However, I'll tell you what. Since you don't actually have a chemistry degree how about if you show us how similar your program was to a degree in chemistry by listing the chemistry courses you took in college. No grades please, just list the names of the courses and the semester hours. Math, physics, biology, and statistics classes should probably also be listed, since they are either required or recommended for chemistry majors. That we you can show us all that you were close to satisfying the requirements for a degree in chemistry, as you have claimed.

[alanrockwood]

An interesting quote below:

...from a September 2004 article entitled "Understanding the Christian Roots of My Political Depression" by John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop:

David Halberstam, in his book on the Civil Rights movement entitled "The Children", quotes Lyndon Johnson talking with Bill Moyers right after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ... "Bill, I've just handed the South to the Republicans for fifty years, certainly for the rest of our life times."

[troy2000]

You picked bad examples of racists, ye of little history knowledge - all Dems. Strom Thurmond switched because he was renouncing his racist, Democratic past. By 1972 the Democratic Party in North Carolina was deeply split over the issue of race. Senator B. Everett Jordan, a three-term incumbent and longtime defender of segregation, was challenged for the Democratic nomination by Congressman Nick Galifianakis, who won a bitter primary fight with the support of many newly registered black voters. Jesse Helms switched parties, sought the Republican nomination and won a narrow victory to escape the newly registered black block, took his voters with him, and became the first Republican ever to win a Senate race in North Carolina. Former Democrats, many motivated by white racism, provided his 54-46 percent margin.
"A solid majority of blacks still vote Democratic" because...well, because Bruce Bartlett can explain it with more acrity than I. Try http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/023060062X/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books or Cliff notes (an interview by Jamie Glazov), http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952363/posts . In short, when you say "white racists today are much more likely to consider themselves Republicans than Democrats" you are out of your rattlesnake lovin' mind. Republicans sometimes get heavy on the religion but, in general, there has never, ever, in the history of the world, been a fairer, less racist block than today's conservatives. I tend to think "Tea Party" rather than Republican, anyway, as it symbolizes freedom, equal rights more than just "don't abort babies". The way I see it, we can all argue about religious tenets later. What we need to do now is insure freedom for our children and stop the bleeding caused by politicians spending more money than we can feed them... for WHATEVER reason (corruption, do-gooding, horse-trading, etc.) Hang Charley Rangle and Harry Reid. Put Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi behind bars. Any Rep. that runs on "values" and doesn't have any - likewise. Barack Obama shud be impeached for implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy. Raum Emmanual will likely be indicted for bribing Sestak not to run against Arlan Sphincter. If it can be shown that Obama Knew about this, we've got him, too, the racist bastard.
Are you out of your ever-loving mind? The claim that Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican Party to 'renounce his racist past'--right after the Democrats pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964--is one of the most incredible bits of historical revision I've ever read in my life:p .

Do you honestly think I'm stupid enough to swallow such nonsense, or are you just honestly that ignorant and misinformed? Or are you just cynically and knowingly throwing up complete BS?:confused:

Sorry...I didn't ask Bruce Bartlett why blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic; I asked you. So I didn't bother to click on the link to Bartlett. Do you have the balls to give me your own answer, in your own words? I doubt it. I suspect it would completely undermine your claim that you aren't racist....

You keep carrying on about what a fine, non-racist bunch conservatives are. So tell me this: how many liberal Democrats have been arrested lately for plotting to assassinate Obama? How many white supremacist groups in the country have proudly proclaimed that they're liberal Democrats?

I hate to break the bad news to you, son. But just as the Democrats and liberals are stuck with the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton whether they like it or not, the Republicans, conservatives and Tea Baggers are stuck with white racists.

It's absolutely true that not all Republicans and/or conservatives are white racists; in fact, most of them aren't. But it's just as true that almost all white racists today happen to be Republicans and/or conservatives. Therefore, your claim that Democrats are the 'real' white racists is obviously self-serving nonsense.