Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really think you have trouble comprehending what I'm saying.
Actually, I comprehend you very clearly. You are arguing a subjective position and were attempting to use science as your backing such as your Hurrican study by Mann to support a premise that there is a significant rise (which I showed you is just an issue of better instrumentation) and then trying to link mankind to the cause so you can create urgency to your cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
What did I avoid? I made my point. You made yours. It's really not relevant to the discussion to keep rehashing it all.
You asked for "Official" "Peer reviewed" material and you ignored that it convincingly contests Mann's claims. You ignore any and all science that does not support your position. You use fallacious tactics to evade, attack, and promote your position when it lacks any valid support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
And what am I trying to sell? That we pollute and have the ability and ingenuity to stop polluting? Duh.
You are selling urgency and a demand to immediate conformity to your cause unethically using science as your support when it is not validated and much of your support has already been shown to be highly assumptive and without merit. You are selling a "belief" and attempting to manipulate and bully others to your position by using empathy to create dependence to your view.
As has already been stated. Few would argue that an overall goal should be an improvement in efficiency and to be cleaner. Many would support that, but none of the "solutions" presented take into account that there is no support for urgency to which requires "sacrifice" be it through economic hardship or oppressive dictation.
Cap and Trade is a call of urgency. Kyoto is a call of urgency and the numerous purposed regulations and conditions currently supported by your positions supporters are nothing short of extreme measures riding the claim of urgency and prediction of disaster. You are selling fear so it will force acceptance to your solutions which are built on false information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
If you can prove to me that human activity does not cause pollution and a heat island effect on a local level, and that said pollution doesn't travel around the world, then by all means you will silence me for good and I will accept my certification as a snake oil salesman. (I wonder why snake oil got such a bad rap...)
First off, those making the claim must prove it is so, not the other way around. Pollution is a fact, yet the link to climate is not a valid position. It has not been even remotely verified without using extremely assumptive modeling and cheery picked data. Heat island effects on the local level are caused by Urban influence, yet this does not translate to global levels. Much of the data for surface stations being used to purport temperature increases are not accounting for UHI (urban heat indext) to which stations are supplying incorrect readings through warming bias. Also, the majority (over 90%) of those stations in the US are not even within the acceptable CRN rating, yet they were used by Hansen to create his warmest years calculations which have already been debunked.
The 1930's were warmer than it is now and all information based on Hansens work are invalid. Also, the work Mann has produced concerning Tree Ring data (Dendrochronology) is also invalid as he first uses statistical deciet to omit the Medieval warming period and then splices his reconstruction of the hockey stick on to the end of it which has already been proven through analysis of his selection methods, his statistical manipulation and currently observational data.
Much of the work by the IPCC that purports AGW is based on his work, Hansens work, and Briffa. As for Briffa, his work was recently shown to be biased by his selection of using 12 trees from an area in Russia to which he allows extreme bias for them resulting in a heavy weighting and statistical manipulation to achieve his conclusions. These core works have been used over and over through a large portion of the further research for AGW support and it results in garbage data being passed from one to the other creating a consistency of bias to support the AGW hypothesis.
When I mentioned that you were using a common sense fallacy, it is the link you create by one fact to which attempts to assume another by simple correlation. Pollution has local effects. Yes, it can cause issues with water systems locally, it can create smog and poor conditions in those areas among other things. Though that does not prove that it effects climate, not in the slightest. Common sense can not be applied because many issues (a lot in the sciences) can not be explained with simple common sense evaluation. It is a fallacy to assume such.
This is why it is of the utmost importance that we follow scientific process when we evaluate these claims. If we do not, then there is no logical constraint and wild claims and conclusions can be made that are not founded. The result is that we spin our wheels applying solutions that will do more harm than good (economic hardship or even creating a problem that may not have existed by attempting to manipulate global systems).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Anyway, I'm confused why you keep harping on this research issue and accusing me of selling some position on the whole GW debate. I've made my position on it very clear. I don't care. Bigger fish to fry in the world than whether global warming is real or not, such as creating new technologies that stop polluting!
Because it is the research that attempts to claim there are problems and that research attempts to claim that we are responsible and solutions must be implemented immediately without concern to additional consequences that come with such urgent implementation. The political level takes that research and then uses that claim of urgency to implement policy that is extremely restrictive, excessive in taxation, unreasonable in implementation.
The fact is, they have not found a link between man and climate. They have not even properly identified if there are problems as opposed to simply a natural cycle of the planet. They have been wrong on most of their research and some have been devious in their promotion and scare tactics (Greenpeace, IPCC, CRU, etc...). Without the support of this extremely poor research, the calls made would have a much smaller effect. AGW supporters know this and many believe that it is acceptable to lie about the facts because as you mention, the bigger fish is stopping pollution and the like.
The problem is that this is an unethical method and one wrought with misery and oppression. What good is it to clean up pollution if you destroy societies functional being? Some could care less about forcing extreme hardship on the people as long as they get their way. This is dangerous to a healthy society and if this behavior is accepted (lying to achieve an end result) then there is no bounds to the destruction this type of behavior can cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Why you think that's such a bad thing or I'm somehow trying to deceive people is beyond me. I feel you are a very unhappy individual. I was being genuine in my salutation to you, and all you could do was respond with some snide childish response.
I never said being cleaner and more efficient was a bad thing. I am all for newer and more efficient technologies. Nobody likes to breathe smog and who would argue at paying less for cars that run more efficient? The problem is that if you have to cut off your legs to save your finger, then you are making a bad trade and many of the suggestions concerning "cleaner and more efficient" are littered with cash making schemes that often hide their "cleaner and more efficient" behind lesser quality, limited function, and hidden expenses.
As I said, there is a reason some of these "clean" technologies never were implemented before the craze. They are not improvements as they remove benefits to achieve their goal. A Hybrid Hydrogen car requires its cells replaced every 5 years running around 5-7 k in expense and battery vehicles are similar. Saving a few dollars at the pump to which dramatically increases your expense in other areas is not an "improvement", its a bait and switch. Using light bulbs that are far more toxic than incandescent and do not match the level of light output is not an improvement, it is giving up to get. Using a hard drive that is rated as "green and environmental friendly" when it is nothing more than a slower stripped down drive is not an improvement.
I am all for improvement, I want cleaner energy, but I want it as an improvement, not a condition for me to give up my quality of life to meet someone else's demands that I live according to their means.
To answer your ad hominen, I am actually quite happy in my life. In fact I am excessively happy and look forward to each and every day. You think I write this much and argue this detailed because I am angry and unhappy, yet I enjoy talking about the research and exercising logical construction of discussion. It is unfortunate that others do not apply as such, but that is the way of the world. Ignorance and emotional declaration is nothing new so your position is not surprising and my patient response to you only shows others how invalid and ill thought your position is which results in maybe more people seeing the truth about these issues and how the population is manipulated to serve specific agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Perhaps once you graduate and get out of the textbooks and into the real world this will all make more sense to you.
Until then....
Again you let your assumptive feelings drive your understanding. I think it is your arrogance and ignorance which drives you to continue your fallacies. Rather than attack my argument meeting it premise by premise, you use fallacies to promote unverified and invalid conclusions hoping that your libelous assumptions will catch wind with the mob and so you can continue on with your goal while never having to attend to the support of it.
You keep saying that you just want to fight pollution and promote innovation in technology yet you keep using the assumption that all of the research is correct that supports AGW. You refuse to even deal with the research unless it is another who acts in kind by simply cutting and pasting headlines or making vague references to research they know nothing about.
When someone does actual discuss the research, you run away for your ignorance of the subject endangers your fallacious position on the subject. You contradict yourself constantly by claiming you do not care about the science and yet you keep referring to the conclusions of research to drive your position.
Essentially, your position is invalid by simple logical structure and so you will continue to frolic in the meadows of fallacies to protect your confused view of the subject.
I think we have had enough discussion and I have dealt with a slew of fallacies from you now simply to humor you. Now you will be placed on ignore with the rest of the posters there who love to talk the talk, but can't seem to find their shoes when its time to walk.
I will say that it is rather sad that in the face of logical and factual discourse, you cling to irrational and emotional conduct. They say arrogance and ignorance combined is a disease that festers and corrupts. I would have to agree.
Wow. Your attack on another poster for making the same argument I did and throwing us all into some nefarious camp where we seek to indoctrinate people into believing something horrible is going to happen is just in your own head. I never said that and, frankly, your novel above reveals a level of obsession that is making me uncomfortable.
The simple fact is that we pollute and we have the ability to stop polluting. That's my point. That's my only point. The passing comment about hurricanes onto which you have attached was simply in response to another poster who claimed they have gone down. I was just offering research that countered that claim.
Wherever you're drawing a link from my claim that we can really innovate as a society and do some great things to some assertion that I believe we need to manipulate people and force economic hardship and sacrifice on people is all in your own head. You're looking for a fight with someone other than me and projecting your desires onto me. But I don't fit into that box. Sorry.
You're, ironically, drawing politics into this and assuming the only solution is one of liberal Democratic government control. I've said over and over again that we can voluntarily and enthusiastically use the power of the free market and human ingenuity to build a better world. I'm personally involved in some of that and, if you haven't noticed, we've come a long way in the past 15-20 years. Is the development always smooth? No. Are there inefficiencies in early models that don't work as well? Yes. But, that's where building better lifestyles comes in. Walking, biking, transit... these are examples of simple things people can voluntarily do to improve the environment and improve their quality of life without waiting for technologies to catch up.
Join us in those innovations and lifestyles or don't, but I can't see where economic hardship and sacrifice enter into that proposal. I've spent years of my life never even owning a car and they were amongst the happiest I've ever had.
I guess it's best for you to stay put in the scientific realm. You claim I can't make logical arguments, but don't realize that I have. Your problem is that my logic is focused on a different realm than yours, and you want me to be your "enemy" proposing some horrific takeover of society. It's just not there.
Who is "you all"? Are they related to the nefarious "THEM," against which the right wing in this country is militating? The mysterious global cabal of global warming liars?
Do you seriously believe that every leading scientific institution in every country in the world is wrong, or is in on a global conspiracy to con the world's people about climate change? Because that's what you're arguing when you argue against the evidence of climate change.
The claim that because some areas/periods experience cooling, global warming is a hoax is just pathetic. That's the logic of 8-year-olds.
There's no excuse for being uninformed about this topic. All you need to do is listen to the scientists who left the IPCC in protest to the censorship of their data that discounted the man made climate change theory. Yet the IPCC still lists them as part of the unanimous consensus of scientists that are in complete agreement.
Climate change is real because climate change is a natural cycle, driven by solar activity.
The CO2 cause of "global warming" is absolute nonsense because increases in CO2 levels occur after increases in temperature ... and the lag time is in hundreds of years. Consequently, the theory of man's activities causing the warming falls flat on it's face.
Human beings are not a disease, and CO2 is not a pollutant. We exhale CO2 and plants breath it. They exhale O2 and we breath that. Works out real nice. Warmer temperatures promote abundant life, and that's a good thing unless you're a eugenist that believes 80% of the population needs to die off. In that case, abundant life is not your preference.
there is no such thing as global warming at least not where i live. it has been very cool actualy. only 43 degrees as i get up at 6 am this month.the dog days of august just aint here. but what the heck do i know i just live it and see it. and people like all gore have to make a good living so why not just make crap up and cash in on it. if it is on the news it must be true. what a bunch of sheeple we are.
No doubt that Al Gore made tons of money doing the Incovenient Truth. And no doubt that using fear and / or negativity, a common daily news strategy, is very effective in getting people's attention. It's an even more effective way to control. But are you really making that simplistic of analogy of the warming? Maybe you're being funny. Otherwise, me thinks you're missing the point. Extreme weather patterns are one supposed indicator of the phenomena as are rising mean temperatures from all over the planet. Less and less of the general public are arguing whether it's happening. Instead, it's the cause of it that's heavily debated. I think if the discussion raises awareness of the value of balance between us and weather patterns and somehow promotes more respectful and responsible behavior, then much good has come from this. After all, without clean air and clean water, we have nothing.
The fact that temps have dropped, record rain falls, record floods, record snow falls, record droughts, record high temps, ice caps melting...etc., all lead to the fact our weather patterns are OUT OF WACK. Why people like you think us pumping carbon into the air and destroying our atmosphere is funny, is BEYOND ME!
No doubt that Al Gore made tons of money doing the Incovenient Truth. And no doubt that using fear and / or negativity, a common daily news strategy, is very effective in getting people's attention. It's an even more effective way to control. But are you really making that simplistic of analogy of the warming? Maybe you're being funny. Otherwise, me thinks you're missing the point. Extreme weather patterns are one supposed indicator of the phenomena as are mean temperatures from all over the planet. But what do I know?
Yes, but if you read the science specifically, they predicted an overall increase in temperature. That is, they claimed that globally we would see a dramatic increase resulting in droughts, famines, etc...
This is why Trenberth is perplexed in the Climate gate emails, they predicted a mass warming and yet the observational data wasn't showing it, it was a "travesty" in his opinion that they couldn't explain this.
Extreme weather patterns were also predicted, but in the form of wild spikes of occurrence. A light cool summer or a very cold winter is not what they meant. They were talking about wild swings, far above average hurricane seasons, drastic freezing snow storms and wild heat waves shortly after (none of which occurred and actually the opposite happened, we had below average occurrence).
The media banked on it, pushed it, the scientists promoting their work basked in the glory of media attention and elevated status using the fear of their predictions.
So it is rather natural that while they also misused the position to make generalized claims, that people would respond back with like reasoning. It doesn't make either right, but you certainly can not sit there with a straight face and act as if only one side is playing the generalization game concerning the science?
Lastly, the interesting issue concerning the distancing of Gore due to his major blunders (though some of his presentations were of his fault as well) is that the "science" they are pointing out that is wrong concerning him isn't his work. It is Hansen, Mann, Briffa, as well as others and their work is all over the IPCC's AR4.
So while Gore really is just a front man of no importance (other than his political meandering), he still was a front man for those who put out work that is flawed, biased, and in severe error. Denouncing Gore won't change a thing for those who know where Gore was getting his "science".
The fact that temps have dropped, record rain falls, record floods, record snow falls, record droughts, record high temps, ice caps melting...etc., all lead to the fact our weather patterns are OUT OF WACK. Why people like you think us pumping carbon into the air and destroying our atmosphere is funny, is BEYOND ME!
But we haven't had records of all of those. In some, but not all that you listed. In fact, other than snow coverage, the trend in many places has been below normal. Those places claiming record highs are often misleading as well as they do not account for past occurence. The news loves to report "A record high since 1984" which isn't honestly a record, its really kind of silly.
For a group that loves to talk about "climate" versus "weather", it sure does love to only focus on vary narrow occurrences to pronounce records and historic trends.
Yes, but if you read the science specifically, they predicted an overall increase in temperature. That is, they claimed that globally we would see a dramatic increase resulting in droughts, famines, etc...
This is why Trenberth is perplexed in the Climate gate emails, they predicted a mass warming and yet the observational data wasn't showing it, it was a "travesty" in his opinion that they couldn't explain this.
Extreme weather patterns were also predicted, but in the form of wild spikes of occurrence. A light cool summer or a very cold winter is not what they meant. They were talking about wild swings, far above average hurricane seasons, drastic freezing snow storms and wild heat waves shortly after (none of which occurred and actually the opposite happened, we had below average occurrence).
The media banked on it, pushed it, the scientists promoting their work basked in the glory of media attention and elevated status using the fear of their predictions.
So it is rather natural that while they also misused the position to make generalized claims, that people would respond back with like reasoning. It doesn't make either right, but you certainly can not sit there with a straight face and act as if only one side is playing the generalization game concerning the science?
Lastly, the interesting issue concerning the distancing of Gore due to his major blunders (though some of his presentations were of his fault as well) is that the "science" they are pointing out that is wrong concerning him isn't his work. It is Hansen, Mann, Briffa, as well as others and their work is all over the IPCC's AR4.
So while Gore really is just a front man of no importance (other than his political meandering), he still was a front man for those who put out work that is flawed, biased, and in severe error. Denouncing Gore won't change a thing for those who know where Gore was getting his "science".
Thanks for the details. I have only observed the issues in a very general sense so I am ignorant much of the detail, including the personnel involved.
FYI...The CEO of the Weather Channel (name escaping me) does an interesting take on climate change that fits nicely into this discussion. I'm sure you can Google this to hear him.
I was bored yesterday and decided to download temp data for santa fe. Found a nice set of data for Albuquerque. I dropped it in excel and charted it. Over the last thirty years Albuquerque temps have been as flat as my prom date.
That's funny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
