What Do We Think About Climate Change

Nah its all changed... boomers are the power now we just fight the kids.

 

Sure if you are willing to ignore the reams of solid research which led to "the day" and was the very reason for the ban.

Take that and the FORTY years of well established literature documenting the strength of this causation following that day.

The fact that a scientific topic has policy/political implications is often tauted as a reason that the research is suspect. This supposition is often presented with no clear understanding of the science in question or any real investment in understanding the research.

.................................

I do not remember any of the debate as it occurred. I have no doubt that some spokespersons for the ban were strident and used exaggerated claims to support their views. I don't have the slightest concern that some Sierra club member stood in hearings and ranted about pesticides killing our babies. The actual research was unequivocal and remains so today. This was a sound policy decision based on sound scientific findings.

 

Beanzy needs to read ALOT,,,, he has no life ,, hehe

 

No No No No No yes Jim, that seems to be his life a learned man (a reader)

 

Oh if only you could take a bit of your own advice when it comes to the AGW debate.

Humans make a tiny, really insignificant puff of GHG's. Our CO2 contribution is smaller than the error bars for the estimates of total tonnage CO2 in the atmosphere.

All CO2, anthropogenic and natural, is responsible for only a tiny percentage of the greenhouse effect; water vapor is the greenhouse gas of merit and is entirely natural in origin.

Temperatures historically rise long before CO2 levels rise. The current warming trend is no exception.

Humans have been releasing CO2 in any significant tonnage only since circa the 1940's, while the current bit of warming is many decades older than this.

These are the UNDISPUTED facts on climate change The interpretation of the above facts is disputed, of course, but these facts are not in dispute.

The 'fingerprint' of greenhouse warming is missing; the atmosphere is warming in the wrong place and way. This is virtually the only fact in dispute, as the AGW alarm crowd insists that the fingerprint is there.

Trouble is they make this assertion by relying on

1) data from (surface) measurements we KNOW are inaccurate and

2) 'secret' (therefore NOT peer reviewable) corrections to the (satellite based) measurements we know are far more accurate and

3) unbelievably sloppy (but most likely fraudulent) corrections to the surface measurement data that purport to exonerate those measurements as trustworthy when even the most cursory review of the state of the surface measurement system says they aren't; they can't be.



The above constitute major abrogations of the scientific peer review process (one case is really more like fraud). Then the greens prattle on about how every paper on climate change must be peer reviewed before we can put any stock in it! Why didn't their peer review process catch these little problems? It took skeptics to catch these errors and frauds. But the greens haven't let any of these inconvenient truths rain on their parade, no sir! the AGW crowd (like you, Thomas) continues to pretend that this tainted critical data is GOOD! Secret corrections? No worries! Just TRUST THEM What hypocrisy.

Your emperor is naked, man!

Jimbo

 

Hi Jimbo, So is someone else ? (I just feel like stirring as one sanctimonious prick is wont to do occasionally......)

 

bntii, wot line? seems in the form of reasonable debate so far?

Jimbo my comment only related to your last line (in post 927) as I presume I am - - all too often?

 

You sound like all you want is a fight....

 

By John McLean, noted AGW skeptic on the subject of peer review:

"The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires the use of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed.

In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work. "

Again the question arises: If AGW is such a slam-dunk, why this ******** :?:


Thomas,

I know it's hard for you, but try to address the QUESTION rather than proffer some sort of 'cull factor' as license for you to discard as worthless the author and his argument.

Jimbo

 

Jimbo, This is a debate vested in preconcieved ideas where none can sway another except on the day when "I told you so" and even then likely remain in denial....

 

"You sound like all you want is a fight...."

Yeah- I got that impression too.......
I even got tired of listening to myself talk.


but this is not the case- just how I was coming across

I have some interest that the science is known and not distorted by these sorts of debates
that is the reason I pushed on this issue which I hope we can now burrrrrryyyyyy

so I can go back to sparing with old jimbo on his "AWG crowd" statements

again appologies

 

If we BOTH agree to this we will have made significant progress



the science presented should be just that- science

MUCH more on this later- should not surprise you eh?

willing?

 

Thomas

BTW you 'winning' salvo on DDT was deeply flawed. Pyrethrins, while initially discovered in chrysanthemum blossoms, are not currently manufactured that way. The provenance of the chemical, whether natural or synthetic is furthermore of no significance as a predictor of toxicity in the body. There is NO scientific evidence that cells prefer 'natural' chemicals over synthetic ones.

Pyrethroids OTOH NEVER were of natural origin, they are entirely synthetic. In either case, the action of these pesticides is virtually identical to DDT in that they are calcium channel blockers that interfere with acetylcholine in neuro transmission. The key difference between these and DDT is dwell time. DDT is a much more durable molecule than pyrethrins, which last only a few hour to a few days vs some number of years for DDT. This is largely because pyrethrins are hydrophillic and DDT is lipohphillic.

But a super short-lived insecticide is NOT what farmers want. So chemists synthesized the pyrethroids which, like DDT, are lipophillic. Pyrethroids last from a few months to a few years in the environment. Not quite as long as DDT, but nearly so. They have been implicated as endocrine disruptors, just like DDT(this is the action suspected of causing the eggshell thinning, BTW). They are suspected estuarine contaminants, just like DDT. The fact that they are a little less persistent in the environment is meaningless in the context of a currently widely used product, which is sprayed by the ton, EVERY DAY.

And yet the raptor birds recovered.

NUMEROUS environmental groups are working constantly to get pyrethroids banned, just like DDT.

I'm not the one who confuses adult mortality with chick survival; the greens already did that during the original hearings on DDT. They took lower chick survival rates and blamed the falling numbers discovered there on the falling adult population counts, when the situation is much more complex than that.

I don't have a problem staying on topic WRT LD-50 extrapolations; YOU brought those up when YOU presented a paper that used those to establish a safe threshold for DDT and purported extrapolated pathogenisis rates outside of that threshold.

Jimbo

 

Yu know you can pontificate all you bloody want and go on ad infinitum, but when it gets to the bottom line there's bugger all any of you, as an individual, can do about it! And the more you 'spout' the less chance you'll ever get together as a group and do something!

Still keep talking, while your talking you ain't doing TO much damage (till some bloody numpty finds that the internet causes global warming / cooling; whichever one is popular this week! You know somebody will - you just can't help it!

 

Sphere of control = the area you are absolutely able to influence and control.

Sphere of influence = the area you are able to influence the outcome of (sometimes more, sometimes less).

Sphere of concern = the area that you feel the need to have control over.

I feel that to be happy you have to realize that there are many things that may concern you, but bloody very few things you have absolute control over.

It's okay to be concerned about the environment - but until you go around and stop all cows from flatuating there are areas that you will absolutely NOT be able to control.

Have you ever noticed how miserable most fanatical people are? I think it is the fact that they don't realize that they can't control something that concerns them.

I like to be happy. I only try to control items that I know are within my sphere of control. That's why cold beer makes me happy - I can control the temperature of my refrigerator, but not the temperature of the planet.