What Do We Think About Climate Change

As we still live in a democratic republic the issue will be decided here in the U.S. by a vote in Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey bill and it now rests in the Senate. The bill relies on carbon credits and has been accurately termed a "Cap & Tax" bill that will actually do little to reduce C02 levels that are not a cause for concern to start with. The senate version of the bill does not have the lock step support of the democrats so passage is uncertain. Nor does the bill have the lockstep opposition of the Republicans, the ever brainless Lindsay Graham is a good example. I spoke to one of his constituents last week and he used adjectives that are usually reserved for a spouses gay lover.

In Indiana, Dan Coats is running in the GOP primary. Coats is a prior member of Congress who is attempting a comeback. He has flipped on Cap & Trade and a bunch of issues and is a virtual stranger in Indiana not having had an address there for over 10 years. The term R.I.N.O. (Republican In Name Only) comes to mind. He is further sullied by having a bunch of lobbying clients of a questionable sort.

His conservative opponent Marlin Stutzman is an outspoke opponent of Cap & Trade along with a bunch of other endearing qualities that will make him an excellent addition to the Senate.

Stutzman is ahead in the polls against the likely Democrat so viability as a candidate is not an issue. He is closing the gap on the squish Coats but needs to sustain an ad campaign to help him come out on top. If you have any extra cash this campaign will be a good investment. I have done so.

http://www.gomarlin.com/

 

Absolutely. Let's take it back.

 

He's your man. He does that for a living, being there in Alaska somewhre, a long winter and no job prospects in sight. The lack of manhood from the sad little midget, displayed through the internet acting as his shield, screams through the roof.

The self-appointed hero of the conservative, dying by the way, breed. You know the type...

 

Thanks for the exposition, Alan. I've been out of school long enough for that to look downright scary, but it wasn't really that hard to follow once I knuckled down and paid attention.

 

The hacked emails didn't corroborate any big lies. It was all petty crap that mostly just proved they're human and can be petty.

The Medieval Warm period, and the Little Ice Age that followed it, were mostly local phenomena. Current evidence doesn't support the notion that there was any synchronous, worldwide change in climate during either period.

The deleted data everyone carries on about isn't gone. It's all still available from the original sources.

So on and so forth. In other words, Jimbo, the same old same old. You're trying to pound us with 'facts' that have already been discredited time after time -- in this very thread, I believe.

 

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

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

 

True, if by this you mean what policies the government will adopt... not true if you mean that the congress can legislate scientific truth.

 

seems pretty clear the whole climategate thing is an invention of the deniers camp in the first place

there is simply nothing but a few opinions being thrown around in a few emails out of thousands of emails over many years and what do they point fingers at? Two or three that they believe dont express the proper concern for the denialist view, hardly a viable complaint if you ask me.

seems like a petty attempt to stir up questions of impropriety where none exist and smacks of the kind of ploy politicians play with one another. Not a valid scientific issue by any stretch of the term.

seems though that some folks would love to believe in it so badly that they simply refuse to acknowledge the shady theft of personal data and the lack of integrity. I believe I mentioned earlier in a court room this kind of tripe would not stand up for a second and as it turns out ( thanks Allan ) it isn't.

it also seems readily apparent that some folks are so desperate for there to actually be a controversy were in fact none exists that they simply don't care about corroboration and prefer to just believe whatever they hear.

also not a very scientific approach

the simple reality is the whole climate gate thing has proven itself to be yet another tawdry smear campaign devised by the deniers camp who lacking any actual hypothesis of there own must stoop to these type tactics classic of the political arena and the tobacco industries PR campaign

fortunately not to many folks are fooled by this kind of thing anymore

cheers
B

 

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

 

Local my ***, and some have actually copped to the emails. Let us not be mendacious, shall we?

 

Yep, local--just like your ***.

And what to you mean by 'copped' to the emails? No one ever denied they're real; they just don't prove diddly squat.

 

You seem to have a problem with people who are better educated than you. Why is that?

 

If you stop and think about it, the fact that they winnowed through tens of thousands of emails, and those were the worst they could find, pretty much blows their arguments about conspiracy and malfeasance clear out of the water.

 

Mark
the kind of individual that progresses through the public education system of this country has two things going for them, tensity and conformity, once you get to the higher levels of education you find graduate level students who poses that essential element of critical thinking and an ability to extrapolate from the known into the unknown, this characteristic fostered by higher education is not conducive to "common sense" but instead requires a level of imagination beyond the norm. Its a two edged sword. On the one hand PHD's are able to "invent" new information from limited resources, on the other the consequences of these developments are not always well thought out, for instance, Openhiemer later regretted having "invented" the bomb and Einstein later believed relativity to be flawed (as was eventually proven)

Same holds true for climate sciences. Who could have guessed the political and socio-economic ramifications of the theory when it was first devised. Issue is not whether there is anthropomorphic climate change ( obviously there is ) but rather if we can see past all the politicians maneuvering to bilk money out of the problem and find a solution. Politicians are what the problem is and a corrupt system is exacerbating that simple reality.

solution is to wipe the slate clean with a good old fashioned revolution, the scientists couldn't generally care less about politics and the politicians couldn't generally care less about science.

the scientists are in love with science for science sakes and the politicians are in love with greed theft corruption bribery avarice power and themselves above all else.
there is no common sense involved other than to say that what we know so far is x and that x in this case is that altering the chemistry of the atmosphere is likely to alter the paradigm of human existence

most likely this paradigm shift will not end up benefiting either the ecosystem as a whole or the human race

we need a revolution and we need it now
Obummer and all the rest are in it for themselves
this we need to change and fast

the revolution will not be televised

my two cents
B

 

Thanks for the informative post, Alan. Let me refer you to my previous post on this subject:

So we have the following conditions:

• Atmospheric CO2 is increasing in concentration.
• Anthropogenic emissions add CO2 to the atmosphere
• CO2 may have a short initial residence time (as measured) but the residence time may be lengthening over time, which would account for the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Does this sum up your position, Alan?

Jimbo