TheEEStory.com

News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
Global Warming - The sky is falling - on the alarmists « Patents « Technology
Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 2:32pm #31
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

Y_Po wrote:

supamark wrote:

btw, they're mostly PhD's and MS's and make what others with their education working in research make (about 100K/year as a prof at a research university for example). the research grants pay for doing the research and hiring assistants (usually college students at univerisities), not their salary.

Their job security depends on their grant-grabbing ability you moron. No grants -> no contract.
So if some elected politician decides to have money for corn-ethanol you better have a proposal for that even if you know damn well that corn-ethanol is bullshit.

at major research universities, it's really about publishing fucktard. sure you gotta write some bullshit grant proposal (which is a big part of "grant grabbing") to get money to pay for the research, but that has nothing to do with the actual results. or how much money the researcher makes. you find real evidence that AGW is bullshit, you'll get published and you'll not lose your job.

If you've spent any time in academia as you claim, you'd know falsifying data is a sure way to not only lose your job, but keep you from getting another one as well. nobody who isn't already in the employ of the corn ethanol industry is writing any sort of research that says corn ethanol is a good idea jackass.

or take the easy way out and take the oil/coal money and don't worry about doing real science.

Offline


Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 2:36pm #32
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

WalksOnDirt wrote:

Lensman wrote:

Burt Rutan, the noted aerospace engineer, is no climatologist, but has written an analysis of the subject concentrating on how well climatologists have analyzed the evidence-- or rather, how poor their scientific procedure is. Just because he's not a climatologist doesn't mean he can't make valid observations about the field.

Except his analysis was posted here, and it was nonsense.

"I don't agree" <> "It's nonsense"

I don't agree with everything Rutan put in his analysis, but he made some excellent and highly significant points.

Last edited Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 3:02pm by Lensman


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 3:03pm #33
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

supamark wrote:

sure you gotta write some bullshit grant proposal (which is a big part of "grant grabbing") to get money to pay for the research, but that has nothing to do with the actual results. or how much money the researcher makes.

Are you embarrassing yourself yet again, Supamark, by refusing to admit it when you're obviously and unquestionably wrong? That's becoming a regular habit with you.

It's true that not every researcher's salary is supported by grant money. Some of 'em work for private industry; for example, Bell Labs and LM's "skunkworks".

But it's also true that for a lot of them, part or all of their salary does come directly from grants.

You could at least have checked Wikipedia before shooting your mouth off, even after more than one person who knows more than you do about the subject corrects you. Quoting from the "Professors in the United States" article:

Salary

Most professors are paid by a college or university on nine or ten month contracts. Salary data for professors is typically reported as a "9 month" salary, not including compensation received (often from research grants) during the summer.

Research professor

A professor who does not take on all of the classic duties of a professor, but instead focuses on research. At most universities, research professors are not eligible for tenure and must fund their salary entirely through research grants, with no regular salary commitment from internal university sources.

(emphasis added)

What was that word you used? "Fucktard". Well, let's think real hard here: Who would know more about grants and salaries in the academic science community, you or Y_Po? And what kind of fucktard would argue with him about something he clearly knows about from working with people whose salaries are provided by grants?

You, that's who.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 3:42pm #34
WalksOnDirt
EESUrient
Ctenucha
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 1749

Lensman wrote:

"I don't agree" <> "It's nonsense"

Generally true, but this was amateurish nonsense.


Deasil is the right way to go.

Offline
Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 3:51pm #35
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

BCGF wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

supamark wrote:

btw, they're mostly PhD's and MS's and make what others with their education working in research make (about 100K/year as a prof at a research university for example). the research grants pay for doing the research and hiring assistants (usually college students at univerisities), not their salary.

Their job security depends on their grant-grabbing ability you moron. No grants -> no contract.
So if some elected politician decides to have money for corn-ethanol you better have a proposal for that even if you know damn well that corn-ethanol is bullshit.

Y_Po is right and there is always monetary pressure to endorse this or study that. There would be a much larger anti-AGW crowd if money to dispute it was the key. There is lots of money out there to argue against AGW and still 99% say no. So even the grant sluts are mostly passing on Oil financed studies. Because they know it's a bullshit.

The AGW mainstream is also guilty of overstating their case and leaving wiggle room for the anti-AGW crowd.

That is a very accurate analysis. The trouble is that continually having to deal with highly political anti-AGW rubbish has (sometimes, to some extent) caused the climate scientists to adopt an unneccessary adversarial position with us and them - this causes some politicisation.

Understandable, but in the circumstances the worst thing they could do. To be fair, I think this is now recognised.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 9:11pm #36
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

BCGF wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

supamark wrote:

btw, they're mostly PhD's and MS's and make what others with their education working in research make (about 100K/year as a prof at a research university for example). the research grants pay for doing the research and hiring assistants (usually college students at univerisities), not their salary.

Their job security depends on their grant-grabbing ability you moron. No grants -> no contract.
So if some elected politician decides to have money for corn-ethanol you better have a proposal for that even if you know damn well that corn-ethanol is bullshit.

Y_Po is right and there is always monetary pressure to endorse this or study that. There would be a much larger anti-AGW crowd if money to dispute it was the key. There is lots of money out there to argue against AGW and still 99% say no. So even the grant sluts are mostly passing on Oil financed studies. Because they know it's a bullshit.

The AGW mainstream is also guilty of overstating their case and leaving wiggle room for the anti-AGW crowd.


Good one. Oil company have more money for potential grab, but their money are no good cause you will get fired if you start grabbing them and produce results which are not aligned with global warming dogma/bandwagon. There are a lot of people who bet on Global Warming and you can be sure that they don't like to admit being wrong.
People somehow think that there is no internal "politics" in science, that academia is some kind of utopia. Well, when it comes to power, people are essentially the same everywhere.


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 9:17pm #37
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

supamark wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

supamark wrote:

btw, they're mostly PhD's and MS's and make what others with their education working in research make (about 100K/year as a prof at a research university for example). the research grants pay for doing the research and hiring assistants (usually college students at univerisities), not their salary.

Their job security depends on their grant-grabbing ability you moron. No grants -> no contract.
So if some elected politician decides to have money for corn-ethanol you better have a proposal for that even if you know damn well that corn-ethanol is bullshit.

at major research universities, it's really about publishing fucktard. sure you gotta write some bullshit grant proposal (which is a big part of "grant grabbing") to get money to pay for the research, but that has nothing to do with the actual results. or how much money the researcher makes. you find real evidence that AGW is bullshit, you'll get published and you'll not lose your job.

If you've spent any time in academia as you claim, you'd know falsifying data is a sure way to not only lose your job, but keep you from getting another one as well. nobody who isn't already in the employ of the corn ethanol industry is writing any sort of research that says corn ethanol is a good idea jackass.

or take the easy way out and take the oil/coal money and don't worry about doing real science.


Yes, captain Obvious, to get grants one has to publish as much as possible.

And do you want me to search for corn-ethanol publications which says it's a way to go?
You really think government did not have scientific studies to back up corn-ethanol movement?


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 10:45am #38
eestoryrw62
EErudite
Declaration
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 25 Mar 2013
Posts: 55

I will believe in global warming when someone explains to me what happened to global cooling. Here is The New York Times-line, they have changed their position four times.

“MacMillian Reports Signs of New Ice Age” Sept. 18, 1924;

“Americas in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776 Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” March 27, 1933;

“Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” May 21, 1975;

“Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” December 27, 2005

I cannot believe how many of our politicians voted for this fraud. It needs to be called, “Send Our Jobs to Communist Red China Act.”

Can anyone explain the change in global temperature listed by the NY Times over the years?


"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office."- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Offline
Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 11:09am #39
eestoryrw62
EErudite
Declaration
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 25 Mar 2013
Posts: 55

More info on the folly that is "Climate Change" http://davehatter.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/glob...


"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office."- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Offline
Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 11:50am #40
parallel
EEluminated
Registered: Aug, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 682

When the main media starts printing stuff like this you know the end game is approaching. The Daily Mail writes:

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-...

I thought one of the comments was apt:

Sometime in the not so distant future "Global Warming", "Climate Change" or whatever one wants to call the phenomena is not going to be studied as a meteorological phenomena. It will be studied as a psychological and political phenomena.

Offline
Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 11:52am #41
BCGF
EEluminated
Wicked
Registered: Jan, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 556

This whole global warming thing is overblown I think. The pollution we create is not just CO2. Getting warmer is less of a problem now than plain old pollution.

Check the lifespans of people like traffic cops in Beijing. Pollution in all it's variety of toxins is already having an effect.

CO2 is just one of a porridge of poisons/gases we breathe(a natural one). The alarm bells are already sounding loudly in many places around the world. Smog days so bad elderly drop dead.

So who gives a damn about CO2? we need to worry about all the rest and the fixes look just like the ones for AGW.

My point is AGW or no AGW we need to cut our emissions period.

Arguing about AGW is just wasting time better spent fighting against all forms of POLLUTION!!!


Lens scale 0.01/.005 waiting for any real news. I was as high as 8/6

MY new wild assed stupid guess for reveal is
Sept 11 2010
April 22nd, Earth day and good Friday.
never

Offline
Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 6:01pm #42
BCGF
EEluminated
Wicked
Registered: Jan, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 556

More than 150 flights to and from Beijing were cancelled or delayed Tuesday as a thick cloud of acrid smog shrouded the city, with U.S. embassy testing devices saying the pollution was off the scale. The national meteorological centre said the Chinese capital had been hit by thick fog that reduced visibility to as little as 200 metres in some parts of the city. Despite that, official data judged air quality to be "good."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Beijing+poll...

How long before we are all choking on bad air?

Air Quality Index Levels of Health Concern Numerical
Value Meaning
Good 0 to 50 Air quality is considered satisfactory, and air pollution poses little or no risk
Moderate 51 to 100 Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern for a very small number of people who are unusually sensitive to air pollution.
Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 101 to 150 Members of sensitive groups may experience health effects. The general public is not likely to be affected.
Unhealthy 151 to 200 Everyone may begin to experience health effects; members of sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects.
Very Unhealthy 201 to 300 Health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire population is more likely to be affected.
Hazardous 301 to 500 Health alert: everyone may experience more serious health effects

Vancouver is about 7-15 like Seattle, Beijing is 140 to over 200 on bad days. lately they have had readings off the scale!

Beijing is not alone either. Numbers around the world are measurably higher than at any time in History over a wider scale. The scary part is the stuff we are breathing now is only a portion of what is in the system already. 20 years from now how far will we be past comfortable breathing?

Last edited Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 6:16pm by BCGF


Lens scale 0.01/.005 waiting for any real news. I was as high as 8/6

MY new wild assed stupid guess for reveal is
Sept 11 2010
April 22nd, Earth day and good Friday.
never

Offline
Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 7:03pm #43
Technopete
EESUrient
Technopete
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Mon, 15 Sep 2014
Posts: 2385

Lensman wrote:

Perhaps in SupamarkWorld, climatologists don't get their salaries from grants, plus consultant and speaking fees, all based on their support of the dogma of Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmism.

Perhaps in SupamarkWorld, politicians don't get attention, support, and control of the taxation feeding trough by demagoguery, by getting people alarmed and upset over the supposed dangers of the "catastrophe" of global warming climate change.

But in the real world, they do.

Following the money most definitely points to the confluence of interests which promote CAGW alarmism.

Now Supamark comes in with a considered response

Supamark wrote:

btw, they're mostly PhD's and MS's and make what others with their education working in research make (about 100K/year as a prof at a research university for example). the research grants pay for doing the research and hiring assistants (usually college students at universities), not their salary. are you really that stupid to think climate scientists are getting rich? you don't have a clue how scientific research works apparently.

So most of the actual researchers will be PhD students making no money to speak of out of it - they can live on the grants they get, provided they don't expect to pay pensions or morgages. They are directed by professors who might make a little if they are lucky.

So should Lensman accept them as being relatively untainted by the allure of being paid a fortune to push a particular position?

Lensman wrote:

So, your argument is that we should believe the CAGW dogma spouted by "climatologists" because their salaries are generally smaller than oil company executive salaries?

Sure. Just like we should believe Bigfoot hunters and flying saucer cultists because they generally don't get paid much for their investigations.

It does seem that Lens is reversing the line of his argument here.

So come on Lens - which is it to be? Does receiving personal payment, or even money for grant proposals, bias one's public opinion, so objectivity is out? Or does being (almost) unpaid like a PhD researcher mean that belief in Bigfoot has to be somewhere near the surface so the guy has to be a loony believer who cannot possibly be expected to be objective about anything?

It sounds almost like WT's position that he is only prepared to hold a sensible debate with someone with different views provided that WT believes the other party is 'informed'. However, disagreeing with WT naturally means that someone must be 'uninformed', generally removing the necessity for sensible debate.

Regards,
Peter


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2. (Only dummies assume this). (I am one of these dummies).

Offline
Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 7:25pm #44
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

Technopete wrote:

So come on Lens - which is it to be? Does receiving personal payment, or even money for grant proposals, bias one's public opinion, so objectivity is out? Or does being (almost) unpaid like a PhD researcher mean that belief in Bigfoot has to be somewhere near the surface so the guy has to be a loony believer who cannot possibly be expected to be objective about anything?

Surprising as it may seem, TechnoPete, I don't think that all those who support the CAGW dogma have the same motivation. Nor do I think that all of them have just one motive for doing so.

I hope you're not trying to make me out to be a flip-flopper just because I have a nuanced position on a complex issue.

Technopete wrote:

It sounds almost like WT's position that he is only prepared to hold a sensible debate with someone with different views provided that WT believes the other party is 'informed'. However, disagreeing with WT naturally means that someone must be 'uninformed', generally removing the necessity for sensible debate.

This isn't about me, TechnoPete. It's about "supamark". I'm getting really tired of him disrupting so many discussions here by attacking anyone who disagrees with his uninformed assertions. Especially when he attacks people who, unlike him, actually do know what they're talking about.

There's no reason we can't have a civil discussion about climate change or AGW. We can "Disagree without being disagreeable." But when supamark attacks anyone who DARES to point out errors in his assertions, then he creates an atmosphere in which civil discussion is impossible.

I'm not sure if supamark is actually a troll, or simply someone who is too immature to participate in an adult conversation. But since he seems incapable of distinguishing between someone pointing out errors in his assertions and someone making a personal attack on him, I suspect it's the latter.


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 7:37pm #45
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

Lensman wrote:

...

the CAGW dogma

....

I have a nuanced position on a complex issue.

Perhaps one other than CAGW?


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Sun, 29 Jan 2012, 7:40pm #46
Lensman
EExhilarating
Illuminati_avatar
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 9475

ee-tom wrote:

Lensman wrote:

...

the CAGW dogma

....

I have a nuanced position on a complex issue.

Perhaps one other than CAGW?

Not just one. Definitely not. http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g194/Lensman03/Smileys/SmileySmlWink.gif


We are the 99%. A better world is possible.

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 9:24am #47
hum
EExpert
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 21 Feb 2013
Posts: 202

BCGF wrote:

This whole global warming thing is overblown I think. The pollution we create is not just CO2. Getting warmer is less of a problem now than plain old pollution.

Check the lifespans of people like traffic cops in Beijing. Pollution in all it's variety of toxins is already having an effect.

CO2 is just one of a porridge of poisons/gases we breathe(a natural one). The alarm bells are already sounding loudly in many places around the world. Smog days so bad elderly drop dead.

So who gives a damn about CO2? we need to worry about all the rest and the fixes look just like the ones for AGW.

My point is AGW or no AGW we need to cut our emissions period.

Arguing about AGW is just wasting time better spent fighting against all forms of POLLUTION!!!

Except one big problem with this - CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential gas for survival, no CO2, no plant life. We produce CO2 it is a non toxic gas that plants use as food. Why do people keep saying pollution???

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 9:43am #48
Yukon
EEluminated
Hansons1
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 644

Im disappointed. 47 post and y'all havent solved global warming yet. Whats wrong with you people???


"Electricity is really just organized lightning"
George Carlin

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 12:43pm #49
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

Y_Po wrote:

supamark wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

supamark wrote:

btw, they're mostly PhD's and MS's and make what others with their education working in research make (about 100K/year as a prof at a research university for example). the research grants pay for doing the research and hiring assistants (usually college students at univerisities), not their salary.

Their job security depends on their grant-grabbing ability you moron. No grants -> no contract.
So if some elected politician decides to have money for corn-ethanol you better have a proposal for that even if you know damn well that corn-ethanol is bullshit.

at major research universities, it's really about publishing fucktard. sure you gotta write some bullshit grant proposal (which is a big part of "grant grabbing") to get money to pay for the research, but that has nothing to do with the actual results. or how much money the researcher makes. you find real evidence that AGW is bullshit, you'll get published and you'll not lose your job.

If you've spent any time in academia as you claim, you'd know falsifying data is a sure way to not only lose your job, but keep you from getting another one as well. nobody who isn't already in the employ of the corn ethanol industry is writing any sort of research that says corn ethanol is a good idea jackass.

or take the easy way out and take the oil/coal money and don't worry about doing real science.


Yes, captain Obvious, to get grants one has to publish as much as possible.

And do you want me to search for corn-ethanol publications which says it's a way to go?
You really think government did not have scientific studies to back up corn-ethanol movement?

Yeah, I'm curious if anyone was dumb enough to write that paper - the math is terrible regarding energy in/out for ethanol from corn vs other feedstock sources. more likely, big corn producers (like ADM) lobbied congress (aka bribed) saying that it would bring in more money for corn producers (it did) and cut foreign oil dependance (maybe).

I'm sure plenty have taken the easy way out - work for oil/coal producers and write "research" papers for them... pretty much the same deal that tobacco companies were giving when they claimed smoking tobacco did not cause cancer.

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 12:45pm #50
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

hum wrote:

BCGF wrote:

This whole global warming thing is overblown I think. The pollution we create is not just CO2. Getting warmer is less of a problem now than plain old pollution.

Check the lifespans of people like traffic cops in Beijing. Pollution in all it's variety of toxins is already having an effect.

CO2 is just one of a porridge of poisons/gases we breathe(a natural one). The alarm bells are already sounding loudly in many places around the world. Smog days so bad elderly drop dead.

So who gives a damn about CO2? we need to worry about all the rest and the fixes look just like the ones for AGW.

My point is AGW or no AGW we need to cut our emissions period.

Arguing about AGW is just wasting time better spent fighting against all forms of POLLUTION!!!

Except one big problem with this - CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential gas for survival, no CO2, no plant life. We produce CO2 it is a non toxic gas that plants use as food. Why do people keep saying pollution???

Let me put you in a room with high CO2 concentration and see how long you live...

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 12:48pm #51
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

eestoryrw62 wrote:

I will believe in global warming when someone explains to me what happened to global cooling. Here is The New York Times-line, they have changed their position four times.

“MacMillian Reports Signs of New Ice Age” Sept. 18, 1924;

“Americas in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776 Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” March 27, 1933;

“Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” May 21, 1975;

“Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” December 27, 2005

I cannot believe how many of our politicians voted for this fraud. It needs to be called, “Send Our Jobs to Communist Red China Act.”

Can anyone explain the change in global temperature listed by the NY Times over the years?

particulates in the air blocking sunlight from reaching lower atmosphere/ground. Once we cleaned up a lot of it, the temps started rising.

Next?

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 12:49pm #52
unipres
EEuphoric
Mikes2
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 833

Nobody_ wrote:

Watch this lecture, there's more answers than anything else that has been posted here so far

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lectu...

Nobody,
This was a good lecture. I enjoyed the fact that I couldn't fully predict the conclusions until we we're mostly 2/3rd of the way through. I think he builds a strong correlation case between CO2 and warming. Causation on the other hand, not so much. I was left comfortable in my position of being an AGW skeptic, albeit a better informed one…

Thanks for the link.


I do not debate to prove you are wrong, but rather to test that my convictions live up to your scrutiny. --me

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 12:51pm #53
unipres
EEuphoric
Mikes2
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 833

supamark wrote:

hum wrote:

BCGF wrote:

This whole global warming thing is overblown I think. The pollution we create is not just CO2. Getting warmer is less of a problem now than plain old pollution.

Check the lifespans of people like traffic cops in Beijing. Pollution in all it's variety of toxins is already having an effect.

CO2 is just one of a porridge of poisons/gases we breathe(a natural one). The alarm bells are already sounding loudly in many places around the world. Smog days so bad elderly drop dead.

So who gives a damn about CO2? we need to worry about all the rest and the fixes look just like the ones for AGW.

My point is AGW or no AGW we need to cut our emissions period.

Arguing about AGW is just wasting time better spent fighting against all forms of POLLUTION!!!

Except one big problem with this - CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential gas for survival, no CO2, no plant life. We produce CO2 it is a non toxic gas that plants use as food. Why do people keep saying pollution???

Let me put you in a room with high CO2 concentration and see how long you live...

It's the dose that makes the poison. Anything in a high enough dose will kill you.


I do not debate to prove you are wrong, but rather to test that my convictions live up to your scrutiny. --me

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 12:52pm #54
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

Lensman wrote:

Technopete wrote:

So come on Lens - which is it to be? Does receiving personal payment, or even money for grant proposals, bias one's public opinion, so objectivity is out? Or does being (almost) unpaid like a PhD researcher mean that belief in Bigfoot has to be somewhere near the surface so the guy has to be a loony believer who cannot possibly be expected to be objective about anything?

Surprising as it may seem, TechnoPete, I don't think that all those who support the CAGW dogma have the same motivation. Nor do I think that all of them have just one motive for doing so.

I hope you're not trying to make me out to be a flip-flopper just because I have a nuanced position on a complex issue.

Technopete wrote:

It sounds almost like WT's position that he is only prepared to hold a sensible debate with someone with different views provided that WT believes the other party is 'informed'. However, disagreeing with WT naturally means that someone must be 'uninformed', generally removing the necessity for sensible debate.

This isn't about me, TechnoPete. It's about "supamark". I'm getting really tired of him disrupting so many discussions here by attacking anyone who disagrees with his uninformed assertions. Especially when he attacks people who, unlike him, actually do know what they're talking about.

There's no reason we can't have a civil discussion about climate change or AGW. We can "Disagree without being disagreeable." But when supamark attacks anyone who DARES to point out errors in his assertions, then he creates an atmosphere in which civil discussion is impossible.

I'm not sure if supamark is actually a troll, or simply someone who is too immature to participate in an adult conversation. But since he seems incapable of distinguishing between someone pointing out errors in his assertions and someone making a personal attack on him, I suspect it's the latter.

you've yet to answer the question Lensman - how much are you being paid to astroturf this issue?

I also find it rather funny that you, the guy who runs his mouth and then posts various smiley faces to try and insult/humiliate people, is lecturing anyone on etiquitte. this is why I call you a jackass. and the bit about saying you're mad at me for doing things you routinely do is just precious. and pathetic. you're a sad joke.

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 12:54pm #55
unipres
EEuphoric
Mikes2
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 833

supamark wrote:

eestoryrw62 wrote:

I will believe in global warming when someone explains to me what happened to global cooling. Here is The New York Times-line, they have changed their position four times.

“MacMillian Reports Signs of New Ice Age” Sept. 18, 1924;

“Americas in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776 Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” March 27, 1933;

“Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” May 21, 1975;

“Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” December 27, 2005

I cannot believe how many of our politicians voted for this fraud. It needs to be called, “Send Our Jobs to Communist Red China Act.”

Can anyone explain the change in global temperature listed by the NY Times over the years?

particulates in the air blocking sunlight from reaching lower atmosphere/ground. Once we cleaned up a lot of it, the temps started rising.

Next?

Wow you're right...We should stop all those stupid smoke stack scrubbing regulations. That way the particles will cancel out the CO2. Good call. ;-)


I do not debate to prove you are wrong, but rather to test that my convictions live up to your scrutiny. --me

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 1:21pm #56
supamark
EEcclesiastical
Supa_avatar
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Posts: 1240

unipres wrote:

supamark wrote:

eestoryrw62 wrote:

I will believe in global warming when someone explains to me what happened to global cooling. Here is The New York Times-line, they have changed their position four times.

“MacMillian Reports Signs of New Ice Age” Sept. 18, 1924;

“Americas in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776 Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” March 27, 1933;

“Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” May 21, 1975;

“Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” December 27, 2005

I cannot believe how many of our politicians voted for this fraud. It needs to be called, “Send Our Jobs to Communist Red China Act.”

Can anyone explain the change in global temperature listed by the NY Times over the years?

particulates in the air blocking sunlight from reaching lower atmosphere/ground. Once we cleaned up a lot of it, the temps started rising.

Next?

Wow you're right...We should stop all those stupid smoke stack scrubbing regulations. That way the particles will cancel out the CO2. Good call. ;-)

just answering the question... he asked why, I told him based on the most recent knowledge I've found. and there are people thinking about ways to block sunlight from reaching the lower atmosphere (other than using sulpher compounds and soot of course). of course, you couldn't resist throwing in your unneccessary 2 cents.

Offline
Mon, 30 Jan 2012, 2:18pm #57
BCGF
EEluminated
Wicked
Registered: Jan, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 556

hum wrote:

BCGF wrote:

This whole global warming thing is overblown I think. The pollution we create is not just CO2. Getting warmer is less of a problem now than plain old pollution.

Check the lifespans of people like traffic cops in Beijing. Pollution in all it's variety of toxins is already having an effect.

CO2 is just one of a porridge of poisons/gases we breathe(a natural one). The alarm bells are already sounding loudly in many places around the world. Smog days so bad elderly drop dead.

So who gives a damn about CO2? we need to worry about all the rest and the fixes look just like the ones for AGW.

My point is AGW or no AGW we need to cut our emissions period.

Arguing about AGW is just wasting time better spent fighting against all forms of POLLUTION!!!

Except one big problem with this - CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential gas for survival, no CO2, no plant life. We produce CO2 it is a non toxic gas that plants use as food. Why do people keep saying pollution???

technically correct, and I don't see it as the main problem.
It is just one of a cocktail of natural and man-made smog ingredients. Lets call them smog components instead of pollution if that helps. CO2 is not technically a pollutant except when it exceeds the natural range (which we are still in). The other components of smog are better suited to the name pollutants.


Lens scale 0.01/.005 waiting for any real news. I was as high as 8/6

MY new wild assed stupid guess for reveal is
Sept 11 2010
April 22nd, Earth day and good Friday.
never

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 9:34am #58
hum
EExpert
Registered: Oct, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 21 Feb 2013
Posts: 202

supamark wrote:

Let me put you in a room with high CO2 concentration and see how long you live...

Gee supamark, let me put you in a room with a 100% concentration of nitrogen and see how long you live.

Still doesn't make CO2 or nitrogen pollutants.

Remove all CO2 from the atmosphere and see how long higher life forms last on this planet?

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 10:31am #59
unipres
EEuphoric
Mikes2
Registered: Jul, 2009
Last visit: Tue, 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 833

supamark wrote:

unipres wrote:

Wow you're right...We should stop all those stupid smoke stack scrubbing regulations. That way the particles will cancel out the CO2. Good call. ;-)

<snip> Some other stuff </snip> of course, you couldn't resist throwing in your unneccessary 2 cents.


Yep...just messing with ya.


I do not debate to prove you are wrong, but rather to test that my convictions live up to your scrutiny. --me

Offline
Tue, 31 Jan 2012, 11:36am #60
TLee
EExtensive
Registered: Apr, 2011
Last visit: Thu, 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 39

unipres wrote:

Nobody_ wrote:

Watch this lecture, there's more answers than anything else that has been posted here so far

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lectu...

Nobody,
This was a good lecture. I enjoyed the fact that I couldn't fully predict the conclusions until we we're mostly 2/3rd of the way through. I think he builds a strong correlation case between CO2 and warming. Causation on the other hand, not so much. I was left comfortable in my position of being an AGW skeptic, albeit a better informed one…

Thanks for the link.

I watched the entire video (with only a few moments of nodding off) and came away with a little different point of view. I can see that CO2 could very well be more closely related to global temperatures than I previously believed. But my real argument with alarmists has not changed and that is that our costly measures for combating global warming are almost totally ineffective. Even if California’s global warming initiative is fully implemented it 'MAY' reduce CO2 by less than one tenth of a percent over the next twenty years and yet it will drive even more businesses out of California and even out of the United States to places where they will pollute far more. And even if man’s paltry measures were spread around the globe, one bad year of volcano action would wipe all of that out.

BTW, I made the volcano argument some time ago and someone flamed me because they said that CO2 didn’t come out of volcano eruptions. Well, watch the video and it’s apparent the volcanos are and have always been a major source of CO2.

Offline