http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30820631#30827496
This demon is waiting for the wingnutian exhaustive talking points from Guido, Conan et al.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/business/energy-environment/20emit.html?_r=1
Boss Limpbowel:" Now, I ask you: How are we going to grow the party if more and more moderate Republicans are going to suck up to Barack Obama, show up at his public appearances, endorse him, and campaign for him? How in the hell does that expand the Republican Party. You tell me how this is a recipe for expanding the Republican Party."
http://mediamatters.org/clips/200905190021
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30820631#30820631
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30820631#30820712
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30820631#30827496
Here is a head start on your talking points!
"There is so much to this debate, such as the whole man-induced global warming idiocy, the Federal government interfering with States Rights, government dictating policy even more to auto makers, particularly those who took bailout money, and, who is going to want these micro-mobiles, anyhow? Sure, a few will. But, the rest of will be left with no choice. I thought the Left was interested in choice?"
http://www.rightwingnews.com/author.php?id=34
Limbaugh had a limpness problem, but it wasn't his bowel as I recall.
I think this is the latest in more window-dressing on the CAFE standard. I can see there being compromise down the road as there has been in the past. Cutting "greenhouse" emissions by 87% by 2050 is a total crack-pipe dream and a costly disaster for all Americans while the third world will be increasing their emissions.
Hell, there's no conclusive link to emissions and "climate change" since the whole concept of climate change is so fraught with frauds and profiteers.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 20, 2009, 08:40:38 AM
Hell, there's no conclusive link to emissions and "climate change" since the whole concept of climate change is so fraught with frauds and profiteers.
I can't understand how an otherwise intelligent person can write that with a straight face.
Quote from: nathanm on May 20, 2009, 09:58:57 AM
I can't understand how an otherwise intelligent person can write that with a straight face.
I think Conan is channeling his 'inner Inhofe'.
Messin' with ya, Conan.... ;D
Quote from: nathanm on May 20, 2009, 09:58:57 AM
I can't understand how an otherwise intelligent person can write that with a straight face.
And I can't understand how anyone could promote such hysteria using questionable data. Color us both perplexed.
For every scientist propagating this crap, there's one who can ably refute it. Where's the truth and how do you know it to be true or how do I know it to be true? Mass hysteria for profit makes me cynical and skeptical.
I believe in being a good steward to the environment but I'm adamantly against the flawed climatological analysis and absolute BS that's been pumped in the name of "global warming". I have no doubt that cleaner air is healthier for all of us, but the bed-wetting nature of global warming alarmists is a total turn-off for thinking people and realists.
I work with clients daily on reducing their combustion emissions so I'm not exactly a rank amateur on the subject and yes, I work on the side of providing solutions to them to meet government regs. I also have a front seat to see exactly what the cost is to my customer and eventually, their customer. In spite of being able to attribute part of my income to increasingly tighter environmental regs, I do see the over-reaching nature of government and it's created a sense of cynicism in me.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 20, 2009, 12:12:33 PM
For every scientist propagating this crap, there's one who can ably refute it. Where's the truth and how do you know it to be true or how do I know it to be true? Mass hysteria for profit makes me cynical and skeptical.
Have you been listening to the right wingers on the radio again? It's simply not true that there is any significant dissent amongst climatologists about whether global warming is mostly man made. The only real disagreement is about what exactly the effects are, and most everyone agrees that if we keep doing what we're doing, it's going to be bad. There are just some folks who are saying the warming will cause catastrophic and irreversible damage.
Global warming deniers are like troofers, hanging on the words of the few tinfoil hatters who have credentials and disagree with the majority view. The difference is that the deniers have a well funded media machine to confuse the issue.
Spin the wheel... what are the odds?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm
Quote from: nathanm on May 20, 2009, 07:34:31 PM
Have you been listening to the right wingers on the radio again? It's simply not true that there is any significant dissent amongst climatologists about whether global warming is mostly man made. The only real disagreement is about what exactly the effects are, and most everyone agrees that if we keep doing what we're doing, it's going to be bad. There are just some folks who are saying the warming will cause catastrophic and irreversible damage.
Global warming deniers are like troofers, hanging on the words of the few tinfoil hatters who have credentials and disagree with the majority view. The difference is that the deniers have a well funded media machine to confuse the issue.
And from my perspective, Global alarmists are like troofers. There's plenty of credible evidence for belief or doubt on the issue.
Here Nathan, put this in your crack pipe and smoke it:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
"Media Darling James Hansen Hypes Alarmism
As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the number-one global warming media darling, NASA's James Hansen. The increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many scientists. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N39/EDITB.jsp Hansen's increasingly frightening climate predictions follow his 2003 concession that the use of "extreme scenarios" was an appropriate tactic to drive the public's attention to the urgency of global warming. See: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html Hansen also received a $250,000 grant form Teresa Heinz's Foundation and then subsequently endorsed her husband John Kerry for President and worked closely with Al Gore to promote his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." See: http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6 & http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf"
More to come...
Notice the continued use of the term "alarmist". There are people on both sides of the issue who make mistakes or selectively pull out a piece of info here or a bit of data there and blow it out of proportion and wrongly extrapolate too far with it. And why on earth the mention of the 70s global cooling thing? That issue has been addressed time and time again. The fact that this article pulls that straw man out and the bogeyman of Al Gore lol, definitely gives one the slant on this article. That kind of stuff has no place in a real discussion. That article isn't a scientific paper, nor does it offer any real information. Its blatant political and ideological game-playing and cherry picking. "well this part of the earth or antarctica is cooling therefore...." which is just as wrong as saying "well this part of the earth or antarctica is warming therefore...". The sun issue has been adressed before on this forum as well. How many times do we have to go over the same shat on here lol? Its absurd lol. All ya have to do is look this stuff up, and please, that doesnt mean blogs or commentary sites and the like lol.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
I cited a piece from the U.S. Senate, not a news outlet or blog spot to prevent further filtering. Yes, it's from when the GOP was the majority in the Senate. I would well-imagine there's contradictory testimony now posted on the Senate web site.
My point is simply: This is not an absolute scientific conclusion. For it to be absolute, there would not be dissention within the scientific community. This has been made into a political and profit-driven issue. It's being used as a means of higher taxation (without calling it taxes) and for people and companies to profit off fear. Don't get me wrong, I like green renewable energy technology, I like breathing better air, and I like the idea of not being dependent on foreign oil. I simply don't believe it's within the pervue of elected officials to promote special interests by using mass fear of climatological change.
I can make a hypothesis that the sun will turn pink in 200 years and I can support that hypothesis by interpreting and manipulating data to prove my point. If I wanted to set out to prove global warming was a real phenomena I could do that just as easily as I could prove it's all a hoax. There is no way to prove it absolutely either way.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 21, 2009, 10:52:32 AM
I cited a piece from the U.S. Senate, not a news outlet or blog spot to prevent further filtering. Yes, it's from when the GOP was the majority in the Senate.
Boy, that doesn't help your credibility. The filtering in the Senate was every bit as biased at the time.
Even now, good luck in finding a Republican lawmaker who believes in climate change. They're out there, but as rare as a black KKK member.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 21, 2009, 10:59:12 AM
Boy, that doesn't help your credibility. The filtering in the Senate was every bit as biased at the time.
Even now, good luck in finding a Republican lawmaker who believes in climate change. They're out there, but as rare as a black KKK member.
And, as I said, I would imagine there's plenty of fodder promoting global warming in the Senate record since the Dems took control. Based on your logic, how does that help credibility FOR global warming?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 21, 2009, 10:59:12 AM
Boy, that doesn't help your credibility. The filtering in the Senate was every bit as biased at the time.
Even now, good luck in finding a Republican lawmaker who believes in climate change. They're out there, but as rare as a black KKK member.
Didn't McCain state that he believed in it?
Quote from: Hoss on May 21, 2009, 11:49:18 AM
Didn't McCain state that he believed in it?
Yes. And now he's pretty much persona non grata in the GOP. Mainly for the cardinal sin of losing, however.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 21, 2009, 12:27:00 PM
Yes. And now he's pretty much persona non grata in the GOP. Mainly for the cardinal sin of losing, however.
That and being a 'maverick'...
;D
(http://neutrino.petabyt.es/gallery/d/105054-1/mccain_fail_train_001.jpg)
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm157/mynamemattersnot/bush-mccain_fail.jpg)
(http://republicanfail.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mccainfinger.jpg)
I just don't understand how someone can definitively argue that the current change in climate is manmade, since the climate has been in constant flux long before the industrial revolution, long before man ever was on the scene. . . all the way back to when the Earth was formed. There are many scientists (and I use that term loosely) who cherry pick data that supports their theories, rather than looking at all the data - if that's even possible. Nevertheless, I am all for reducing our dependence on dirty burning fossil fuels and being good stewards and green and all that. I just wish the government would use honey (in the form of incentives) rather than vinegar to achieve that end.
I'll stay out of the 'global warming' stuff since I've already said a little human infestation will have no impact on something that's been around for 6,000,000,000 years and has been much hotter and much colder then in any human's time..... but I digress.
The problem with the new standards is, it will actually hurt the very industry we're trying to help. Mandating Americans to drive small, less safe cars will simply drive Americans to buy more used cars that are larger and much more safe. Purchasing more used cars simply hurts the car makers (really, the government) who's trying to jam cars down our throats we don't want.
The Left keeps pointing at Europe and all their small cars. Yes, traffic in Europe is beyond crazy, roads are small and a small car is what everyone wants. In the US, population is less, roads are bigger and speeds are higher (for the most part, Germany is crazy with speed. I was a little uncomfortable driving there).
Americans want big cars to increase safety, help with their big families and to haul more stuff. They're willing to pay the extra price and to buy more gasoline. They don't want the government mandating we drive some Smart car.
More government regulations aimed at the auto industry is the LAST thing we need. Many of the small cars in Europe aren't here because they don't meet so many of the fed's regulations.
Funny that large cars are actually less safe for everybody but the folks inside them, and even then, the benefits are mixed at best. (You're much more likely to plow through a guardrail and off a cliff or have a rollover crash in an SUV, for example)
On the global warming topic, it's a fact that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect. Period. We know that. We also know we're dumping a crap ton of it in the atmosphere. It follows that there is an effect. We can argue about how much effect it has, but believing that there is no effect is like believing that not brushing your teeth won't result in rotten teeth.
And it's strange how the more carbon dioxide we dump in the atmosphere, the higher the levels become, and the higher the global average temperature gets. A strange correlation, especially if you don't believe we have anything to do with climate change.
Thirdly, what the earth was like before humans doesn't really concern me. Keeping it habitable for me is a much greater concern. I'm selfish. love mother nature. If the change is natural, I'd like to stop it before we choke on clouds of methane boiling forth from the oceans and most of the seafood I like to eat (and the things the seafood I like eats) dies from the ever increasing ocean acidity caused by the ever increasing dissolved carbon dioxide content. I'd also prefer that my SO's parents not have to move in with us when the ocean creeps up to their ~10ft AMSL home.
My point is that there is absolutely no room for debate that it's happening. Obfuscating that fact by saying that we don't know whether we're doing it or if it's just natural isn't helpful in the least.
On the bright side, it looks like the sun may not be as active this solar cycle as it has been in the past few, which should help a little from the reduced incoming solar radiation, thus buying us time.
Quote from: nathanm on May 21, 2009, 07:10:36 PM
Funny that large cars are actually less safe for everybody but the folks inside them, and even then, the benefits are mixed at best. (You're much more likely to plow through a guardrail and off a cliff or have a rollover crash in an SUV, for example)
On the global warming topic, it's a fact that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect. Period. We know that. We also know we're dumping a crap ton of it in the atmosphere. It follows that there is an effect. We can argue about how much effect it has, but believing that there is no effect is like believing that not brushing your teeth won't result in rotten teeth.
And it's strange how the more carbon dioxide we dump in the atmosphere, the higher the levels become, and the higher the global average temperature gets. A strange correlation, especially if you don't believe we have anything to do with climate change.
Thirdly, what the earth was like before humans doesn't really concern me. Keeping it habitable for me is a much greater concern. I'm selfish. love mother nature. If the change is natural, I'd like to stop it before we choke on clouds of methane boiling forth from the oceans and most of the seafood I like to eat (and the things the seafood I like eats) dies from the ever increasing ocean acidity caused by the ever increasing dissolved carbon dioxide content. I'd also prefer that my SO's parents not have to move in with us when the ocean creeps up to their ~10ft AMSL home.
My point is that there is absolutely no room for debate that it's happening. Obfuscating that fact by saying that we don't know whether we're doing it or if it's just natural isn't helpful in the least.
On the bright side, it looks like the sun may not be as active this solar cycle as it has been in the past few, which should help a little from the reduced incoming solar radiation, thus buying us time.
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bI_m_BVKDwUBpa2jzbkF/SIG=1296okvv0/EXP=1243041382/**http%3A//www.sadlyno.com/archives/180px-Kool-AidMan.jpg)
Quote from: Breadburner on May 21, 2009, 08:18:34 PM
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bI_m_BVKDwUBpa2jzbkF/SIG=1296okvv0/EXP=1243041382/**http%3A//www.sadlyno.com/archives/180px-Kool-AidMan.jpg)
That's funny!!
Actually, it is interesting to note that temperatures since the 1970s have been on the rise, which directly correlates to a) increased CO2 and b) a reduction in particulate matter in the atmosphere via tighter pollution control laws. It seems prior to that time there was more of an equilibrium happening between greenhouse gases and the human volcano effect (think London fog). Of course there are other bigger factors at work as well, like the sun and natural climate fluctuations. It's also interesting to note that we are one catastrophic volcanic eruption from a nice cool down and it appears the Yellowstone volcano is past due and Anak Krakatoa (the son of the famous Krakatoa) is a rebellious teenager now and could spew at anytime.
Also, I do hope that everyone who is concerned about this is doing their part to curtail their carbon footprint. Let's not place burden on others while not doing our part.
Nathan,
You raise two simple points:
1) What the Earth was like before you were born. Not so long ago it was too cold for you to survive as you currently do. Not long before that it was far too hot for homo sapien sapiens to be comfortable. Not too long ago a weather shift brought famine to much of Europe (and tons of Irish to the United States). It changes. Carbon dioxide levels naturally change too (based on ice cores) - long before we were changing it.
and 2) The Sun has energy cycles. Sometimes it produces more heat on Earth, sometimes less. Exactly what these cycles are and what the effect is, we don't know.
So are we changing the environment? Absolutely.
Does that change include more CO2? Yes it does.
Is that causing the Earth to warm? Hypothetically it is possible. But in reality, no one knows.
If the sun is due for another 10,000 year down cycle, maybe more greenhouse effect would be what we need. If the continents are arranged in such a way that the currents are to slow and the ice grow (another ice age is deemed inevitable), we may wish we had more heat. Or maybe the cycle is continuing the uptick that started 11,000 years ago and the warming will continue no matter what we do. Maybe another volcano will erupt and put our C02 emissions for the last 20 years to shame with the crap it spews out in a couple months. Maybe the plankton in the ocean blooms and reabsorbs the C02 at caster rates. Or maybe we are already screwed and it's too late to do anything about it.
It's worth thinking about and looking into. But we really don't know the effects of either our pollution or our proposed solutions to it. The environment WILL change with or without people and we simply don't know what effect we will have on that change. Given that unknown, I hesitate to sacrifice to achieve unknown ends or prevent unknown outcomes.
Quote from: nathanm on May 21, 2009, 07:10:36 PM
(You're much more likely to plow through a guardrail and off a cliff or have a rollover crash in an SUV, for example)
You watch too many James Bond movies.
Quote from: nathanm on May 21, 2009, 07:10:36 PM
On the global warming topic, it's a fact that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect. Period. We know that.
No we don't. Computer models can be manipulated to predict anything someone wants it to point to. With billions of government money keeping scientists and their lackeys on a payroll, who wouldn't keep pumping hysteria? NASA has to keep itself relevant, especially in tough economic times with deficit spending spiraling out of control.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Real Scientists Repenting on Human Global Warming Fraud
Well well well, the now-retired NASA supervisor of James Hansen, the researcher who has made a 20-year career out of hyping global warming (and who is known to be VERY sloppy with his data), is slamming his former colleague.
In an e-mail to the U.S. Senate Committee for the Environment and Public Works, Dr. John S. Theon writes:
I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation. He was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). He thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.
My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system [That is true. --ed.] because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy."
The only repudiations from liberal blogs about Dr. Theon is that he was not responsible for writing Hansen's performance reviews and that he's been retired since 1994. Hansen first brought his global warming hysteria to D.C. in 1988.
Quote from: nathanm on May 21, 2009, 07:10:36 PM
And it's strange how the more carbon dioxide we dump in the atmosphere, the higher the levels become, and the higher the global average temperature gets. A strange correlation, especially if you don't believe we have anything to do with climate change.
My point is that there is absolutely no room for debate that it's happening. Obfuscating that fact by saying that we don't know whether we're doing it or if it's just natural isn't helpful in the least.
Who are you to say there's no room for debate? Just because you've convinced yourself this isn't a sham doesn't make it right for the other billions of inhabitants of the planet. James Hansen is a nut-job, read his rantings on Columbia University's web site. Titles like: Temples of Doom, The Sword of Damocles? There's a "Letter to Michelle and Barack Obama" which urges carbon tax as a method of wealth redistribution. He doesn't even have the decency to refer to him as Senator or President Obama. The guy is a megalomaniac:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf
Here's the main page of his ravings:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Hansen has come under fire from former co-workers and his chain of command for his flawed conclusions. The guy has an agenda.
Is it possible there could be man-made global warming? Sure it's
possible. Is it definitive? No. For certain, ground level temps in population centers are warmer than rural areas as we generate more BTU's of heat, there's more pavement to retain the heat of the day etc. Most certainly there's been an increase in average temps of population centers over the last century as we've continued to expand them. Is it causing overall "global warming"? Truth is, no one knows for certain why the average temperature has increased by an "astounding" .6 C over the last 100 years. That figure is even debatable within the scientific community.
What these young kool aid drinking dingle-berry's dont realize is the same idiots were telling us there was going to be another ice age 30 years ago......Thank god for wisdom by years and common sense....