This US summer is 'what global warming looks like': scientists

Jul 03, 2012 by SETH BORENSTEIN

(AP) — Is it just freakish weather or something more? Climate scientists suggest that if you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, take a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks.

Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.

These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.

Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn't caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen.

And this weather has been local. Europe, Asia and Africa aren't having similar disasters now, although they've had their own extreme events in recent years.

But since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned that climate change would bring, in general, increased heat waves, more droughts, more sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires and worsening storms. In the United States, those extremes are happening here and now.

So far this year, more than 2.1 million acres (850,000 hectares) have burned in wildfires, more than 113 million people in the U.S. were in areas under extreme heat advisories last Friday, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, and earlier in June, deluges flooded Minnesota and Florida.

"This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level," said Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. "The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about."

Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in fire-charred Colorado, said these are the very record-breaking conditions he has said would happen, but many people wouldn't listen. So it's "I told you so" time, he said.

As recently as March, a special report on extreme events and disasters by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of "unprecedented extreme weather and climate events." Its lead author, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University, said Monday, "It's really dramatic how many of the patterns that we've talked about as the expression of the extremes are hitting the U.S. right now."

"What we're seeing really is a window into what global warming really looks like," said Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer. "It looks like heat. It looks like fires. It looks like this kind of environmental disasters."

Oppenheimer said that on Thursday. That was before the East Coast was hit with triple-digit Fahrenheit temperatures (temperatures above 38 degress Celsius) and before a derecho — an unusually strong, long-lived and large straight-line wind storm — blew through Chicago to Washington. The storm and its aftermath killed more than 20 people and left millions without electricity. Experts say it had energy readings five times that of normal thunderstorms.

Fueled by the record high heat, this was one of the most powerful of this type of storm in the region in recent history, said research meteorologist Harold Brooks of the National Severe Storm Laboratory in Norman, Oklahoma. Scientists expect "non-tornadic wind events" like this one and other thunderstorms to increase with climate change because of the heat and instability, he said.

Such patterns haven't happened only in the past week or two. The spring and winter in the U.S. were the warmest on record and among the least snowy, setting the stage for the weather extremes to come, scientists say.

Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Through most of last century, the U.S. used to set cold and hot records evenly, but in the first decade of this century America set two hot records for every cold one, said Jerry Meehl, a climate extreme expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This year the ratio is about 7 hot to 1 cold. Some computer models say that ratio will hit 20-to-1 by midcentury, Meehl said.

"In the future you would expect larger, longer more intense heat waves and we've seen that in the last few summers," NOAA Climate Monitoring chief Derek Arndt said.

The 100-degree (40-degree Celsius) heat, drought, early snowpack melt and beetles waking from hibernation early to strip trees all combined to set the stage for the current unusual spread of wildfires in the West, said University of Montana ecosystems professor Steven Running, an expert on wildfires.

While at least 15 climate scientists told The Associated Press that this long hot U.S. summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming, history is full of such extremes, said John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He's a global warming skeptic who says, "The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature."

But the vast majority of mainstream climate scientists, such as Meehl, disagree: "This is what global warming is like, and we'll see more of this as we go into the future."

Explore further: Fiction prepares us for a world changed by global warming

4.1 /5 (29 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Future holds more extreme weather

Nov 01, 2011

(AP) -- For a world already weary of weather catastrophes, the latest warning from top climate scientists paints a grim future: More floods, more heat waves, more droughts and greater costs to deal with them.

Science panel: Get ready for extreme weather (Update)

Nov 18, 2011

(AP) -- Top international climate scientists and disaster experts meeting in Africa had a sharp message Friday for the world's political leaders: Get ready for more dangerous and "unprecedented extreme weather" ...

Feds: 'Meterological March madness' mostly random

Apr 02, 2012

(AP) -- Freak chance was mostly to blame for the record warm March weather that gripped two-thirds of the country, with man-made global warming providing only a tiny assist, a quick federal analysis shows.

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the Primorsky Province of Russia

5 hours ago

One of the most influential ecological disturbances is fire. Fire can spread so rapidly and for such far distances that its impact on land is for the most part far greater than any other factor. Less than ...

User comments : 333

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bob_Kob
3 / 5 (24) Jul 03, 2012
If you want to see what global warming looks like, look at AUS winter. Some of the coldest days on record so far.
StarGazer2011
2.4 / 5 (37) Jul 03, 2012
ahh I get it. Weather isnt climate, so Snowmageddon, the two record cold winters in the UK, the wettest UK summer in 100 years, the coldest day in 17 years in Melbourne yesterday, that's just weather.
But when the weather is hot, that's climate.
I also like the 'scientists say' bit, as though science spoke with one voice like a church.
The CAGW cult is generating PHd theses for sociologists for decades.
AtlasT
2.5 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2012
If you want to see what global warming looks like, look at AUS winter. Some of the coldest days on record so far.
Actually it corresponds the situation: the global warming not only makes the weather warmer, it's changing the weather into more dry and continental one. It's because the higher temperature gradient across atmosphere switches the horizontal circulation of Earth atmosphere into vertical one.
StarGazer2011
2.6 / 5 (28) Jul 03, 2012
If you want to see what global warming looks like, look at AUS winter. Some of the coldest days on record so far.
Actually it http://aetherwave...ge.html: the global warming not only makes the weather warmer, it's changing the weather into more dry and continental one. It's because the higher temperature gradient across atmosphere switches the horizontal circulation of Earth atmosphere into vertical one.


Ahh not quite. According the the CAGW theory the poles will heat more than the tropics, actually lowering the temperature gradient. Its worth mentioning that this would reduce extreme weather, which is based on energy difference between two points not the total amount of energy (flow not stock). But nobody ever accused climate scientists of being smart, just manipulative.
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (27) Jul 03, 2012
Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.

These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.


We won't attribute this to AGW, but we won't let any opportunity pass without referring to AGW.

antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (30) Jul 03, 2012
But when the weather is hot, that's climate

Reading seems to be a lost art. Please read the article. They SAY it's weather. They SAY that these occurrences aren't 100% linked with climate change. The SAY weather is variable. They SAY that there can be freak heat (or cold) spells.

All of this is quite clearly spelled out for you in the article.

The point here is (and they SAY this also): This is what it will look like in the future on a more frequent basis (THAT is climate).

So stop these "X had a cold spell" last year nonsense. You're just making yourself look like uneducated fools who can't tell weather and climate apart. That distinction should have been taught to you in highschool.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2012
Without warming the number of records would be expected to be equally distributed between hot and cold.

"Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" - article

And this is with just 0.8'C of warming. An additional 2.7'C are anticipated by 2010 and a minimum of another 3.5'C after that should CO2 emissions be reduced by 90 percent from their current value.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2012
The U.S. grain belt continues to convert to desert. Alerady the corn crop has been reduced by 18 percent. Soft fruit in most of Southern Ontario has been reduced by 80 to 90 percent. Wheat ad rye are also being damaged by the heat.

Russian wheat is already considered a disaster.

Expect higher food prices.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2012
This is very similar to 1936. Only then, there were fewer people dependent upon air conditioning and overhead power lines.

"Sixty years ago, the most terrible heat wave ever recorded fell upon the city. At its end, one week later, hundreds were dead and the daily lists started on the front page and filled an entire column inside the paper."
". When the South baked for weeks in 100-degree heat in 1980, the death toll was half of the 1936 figure. Soon the memory receded and blended in with other heat waves. Just as the memories and fears raised by the Depression receded to the back of the minds of those who went through it.

From The Detroit News: http://apps.detne...zZ7w6qa8
"
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2012
Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.

These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.


We won't attribute this to AGW, but we won't let any opportunity pass without referring to AGW.



As Antialias said, read the article. They mention climate change....they mention global warming. They do not mention the causes....just the effects, the numerous more frequently occuring effects which are also impossible to predict or model on anything larger than a regional basis.
-John Christy says "The guilty party in my view is Mother Nature."
Maybe it's just that time of the month and she'll get over it....
Lurker2358
3.6 / 5 (16) Jul 03, 2012
Without warming the number of records would be expected to be equally distributed between hot and cold.

"Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" - article

And this is with just 0.8'C of warming. An additional 2.7'C are anticipated by 2010 and a minimum of another 3.5'C after that should CO2 emissions be reduced by 90 percent from their current value.


Article fails to mention the SIZE of the record breaks.

last week, Louisiana made MANY record breaks that are not at official NWS stations, and so they are not counted, even though the records are 100 years old.

The Appalachian states had high temperature breaks of not one degree, but five to ten degrees above the previous records in a 120 year history.
Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2012
For the record, Australia's surface temperature is currently between 2.5C below average and 5C above average.

Antarctica?

Between 2.5C below average for a minimum in a few isolated locations, and wide spread 10C to 20C or more above average over most of the continent's land mass.

S. Africa? 2.5C to 7.5C ABOVE average.

S. America? 2.5C to 7.5C ABOVE average.
Lurker2358
3.9 / 5 (16) Jul 03, 2012
Rygg:

Louisiana just had 5 consecutive days where we BROKE the previous records, which were actually in the 1960's, not the 30's, BROKE them by 4f to 6f every day for 5 consecutive days.

Monticello, MS just broke their record high from 1933 by 4 degrees.

Selmer, Tennessee, June 30, 9f break above the previous record.

Look at all the Appalachian records.

This is not even remotely within normal statistical expectations for this region.

If you have a 120 year record, then even a 200 or 500 year heat wave would only be expected to break the previous record high by one or two degrees, not NINE.

June temperatures beating the all time record highs in states where the previous all time record high is in July, and the all time record high was always held in July for as long as the record existed... that is not "normal" variation in "weather".

It is unnatural.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (22) Jul 03, 2012
It is unnatural.

No, it's not.
AL broke a 1914 record. Look at the 11 year solar cycles.
1936-1914 = 22/11 = 2.
What a coincidence, high temperature records are set ~11 years.
Anyone check on cold temperature records around 1920 on solar cycle peaks?
Lurker2358
3.5 / 5 (14) Jul 03, 2012
No, it's not.
AL broke a 1914 record. Look at the 11 year solar cycles.
1936-1914 = 22/11 = 2.
What a coincidence, high temperature records are set ~11 years.
Anyone check on cold temperature records around 1920 on solar cycle peaks?


The records are too much bigger than previous records to be explained by solar cycle variation.

I predicted this year would be the hottest on record, and that next year would likely be the hottest still, based on a COMBINATION of the Keeling Curve and the solar cycle, but the solar cycle explains at most a few PERCENT of the temperature variation.

Did you get the fact that many of the record breaks from all over the nation were 5 to 9 degrees above the previous record?!

Your solar cycle theory fails immediately.

Additionally, if the Sun itself was responsible, you'd expect the largest temperature changes to occur near the Equator, where the greatest incidence of radiation occurs. It does not.
Lurker2358
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 03, 2012
1998 was a solar neutral-negative year, and that was the HOT year to which you deniers claim all years since have been cooler than...

0 and 11 = positive
5.5 = negative
2.75 and 8.25 = neutral

2013 - 1998 = 15

15 - 11 = 4

2.75 < 4 < 5.5 = neutral-negative

I just refuted your theory using nothing BUT your theory...
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (25) Jul 03, 2012
I predicted this year would be the hottest on record

But you asserted it was not natural.
If it was not natural how could you make any predictions?
Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2012
But you asserted it was not natural.
If it was not natural how could you make any predictions?


Based primarily on the Keeling curve and the reduction of Albedo due to Glacial melting and sea Ice melting, COMBINED with the fact that the 3 years centered on the first half of 2013 should be the hottest based on the solar cycle.

The solar cycle alone could never have done what has happened so far this year.

Besides, we predict all sorts of unnatural events, as unnatural events are often easier to predict than natural events, because the unnatural events tend to be biased by design or some other human induced mechanism, or catastrophic failure of said mechanism.

We can generally predict who will win a tennis match, for example.

But generally, because of CO2 continuing to rise, every solar cycle will be hotter globally than the one prior to itself, excluding catastrophic volcanism or meteor impacts...
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2012
Natural events must follow natural laws.
What unnatural laws do you use to predict unnatural events?

How do you know a similar high pressure ridge didn't appear over the USA 700 years ago?
After all, the Great Plains experienced period massive prairie fires for centuries. That would have required very hot and dry conditions, similar to recent events.
The solar cycle alone could never have done what has happened so far this year.

It has before.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (24) Jul 03, 2012
Weird. US CO2 levels are the lowest they've been since 1990 thanks to cheap shale gas.

Why do they blame extreme weather on low CO2?

http://wattsupwit...is-year/
Lurker2358
3.4 / 5 (16) Jul 03, 2012
What part of "each solar cycle is hotter than the one before" havent you gotten?

That represents unnatural bias created by man made CO2 and other pollutants.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (16) Jul 03, 2012
"Natural events must follow natural laws.
What unnatural laws do you use to predict unnatural events?"

Fortunately, unnatural events also must follow natural laws, they are more predictable because of the varibles associated with unnatural events. For example, elevated atmospheric CO2 amplifying the effects of the positive phase of a solar cycle.

"It has before"

When?
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2012
What part of "each solar cycle is hotter than the one before" havent you gotten?

That represents unnatural bias created by man made CO2 and other pollutants.


What is unnatural about it? Man IS part of nature even though the socialists keep insisting it ain't so.
Lurker2358
3.6 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2012
Weird. US CO2 levels are the lowest they've been since 1990 thanks to cheap shale gas.

Why do they blame extreme weather on low CO2?

http://wattsupwit...is-year/


FALSE.

US CO2 levels are higher than they've ever been since man was on the Earth, and are well over 40 PPM above 1990 levels.

"Emissions" and "Current Level" are two different things.

When you are producing twice as much of something as nature can recycle, then cutting a few percent is not enough to make a significant difference.

In fact, over the long term, the Keeling Curve's slope is increasing, although the global recession of the past few years has slightly slowed that trend in the past few years.

In order to stop the Keeling Curve from rising, we need to cut global human CO2 production by somewhere between one third and one half of all present day human CO2 production.
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2012
Weird. US CO2 levels are the lowest they've been since 1990 thanks to cheap shale gas.

Why do they blame extreme weather on low CO2?

http://wattsupwit...is-year/


You have inserted the word "levels" in place of the word "emmissions" for your post. The link clearly states that it is emissions that are down. Levels are actually higher when pertaining to overall atmospheric content than they were last year at this time. Up almost 3 PPM .

http://co2now.org/
Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2012
What is unnatural about it? Man IS part of nature even though the socialists keep insisting it ain't so.


Man is a part of nature, you're half right.

But you're an idiot if you don't see the consequences of the trend.

ARe you that blind, perhaps as I once was?

Are you so vehemently in denial that you aren't actually taking the time to understand what we're talking about?

Go to wikipedia and search "El Nino" and LOOK at the temperature chart that appears, and compare every eleventh year in the satellite era. Every eleventh year is hotter than the previous cycle. If the solar cycle was to explain the warming, then every eleventh year should be about the same.

Cutting per-capita emissions by a few percent per decade does not help, since population growth rate is greater than that.

If we cut per-capita emissions to 70% of today's amount by 2035, it won't make much difference, because world population will be about 9/7 of what is now.

0.7 * 9 / 7 = 0.90

continues...
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2012
Weird. US CO2 levels are the lowest they've been since 1990 thanks to cheap shale gas.

Why do they blame extreme weather on low CO2?

http://wattsupwit...is-year/


FALSE.

US CO2 levels are higher than they've ever been since man was on the Earth, and are well over 40 PPM above 1990 levels.


So why is the whole west coast so cold?
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2012
"reveals that such cycles are inherent to the NGP and have characterized the region for at least 8,500 yr and possibly longer, although secular trends remain difficult to identify. Documentation of similar cycles at other sites in the NGP suggests a regional response to environmental forcing that is possibly related to solar variability, ultimately culminating in dual landscape modes."
http://www.pnas.o...865.long

~160 year solar cycles, hmmmm.
Lurker2358
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2012
Now 90% of current human production of CO2 by 2035 would still be a surplus of about 1.6 PPM per year, which is not enough to really even matter.

As shown, in order to get DOWN to a surplus of 1.6PPM year by 2035 we need to cut per capita CO2 production by 30%, the first 20% or so just in order to offset population growth.

the U.S. needs to convert to solar boilers covering the desert south west in order to accomplish this, and that's an absolute requirement, regardless of what other changes are made in primary energy sources or automobiles.

Electric automobiles need to be powered by clean, solar boiler electricity where boilers are possible, and PV electricity where boilers are not possible, in order to make a big enough difference. This implies the need for massive changes in our concept of energy production and consumption both individually and collectively.

Every person, business, and government needs wind turbines, solar panels, and boilers where ever possible.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2012
Under story fires 0-10 years.

http://en.wikiped...-1-2.png

Looks like drought cycles were quite common before Columbus.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2012
Every person, business, and government needs wind turbines, solar panels, and boilers where ever possible.


How do they stand up to 90 mph straight winds?
Lurker2358
3.8 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2012
So why is the whole west coast so cold?


A stable north wind for several days.

Stalled frontal systems are expected as a greenhouse effect gets worse and worse...

Incidentally, during the next 6 to 10 days, the west coast, and the Rockies are forecast to be well above normal:

http://wx.hamweat.../us.html

Being above or below average due to the pressence of ridges or troughs is a weather phenomenon, and is unlikely to vanish totally in the temperate zones, even in the most extreme forms of global warming during the next century or so.

You will have "below average" days, even by today's long term averages as the standard, even if 2C or 3C worth of warming happens. It's just they'll happen less often and less drastically.

NotParker
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2012

A stable north wind for several days.


Nope. The west coast has been cooling for years.

Washington State is not uncommon. The last 5 years were -.3F colder than the 1971-2000 average. Which puts the last 5 years colder than ~1898-1908, and colder than ~1940.

http://sunshineho...omalies/

http://sunshineho...omalies/

UK is colder too.

The last 5 years are on average .66C cooler than the previous 5 years, and .16C colder than the 5 year period before that, and also .1C colder than the period starting in the late 1980s.

http://sunshineho...omalies/
Lurker2358
3.7 / 5 (10) Jul 03, 2012
How do they stand up to 90 mph straight winds?


90mph observation height winds is not that big a deal for solar, because the large farms are closer to the surface than that, and the panels are typically on roof tops for private or businesses.

Roofs do not peel in straight line winds until around 115mph sustained, or about 140mph gusts.

I don't know for sure, but the breaking point of industrial scale wind turbines appears to be somewhere around 155mph sustained, as seen in England and other European nations in recent gales in the past few years. Yet even at that speed, it doesn't mean they all break, just one or two in a large farm.

Besides, your ordinary power infrastructure, particularly in the US where we still foolishly run most of our lines above ground, will fail around 75 miles per hour, and will be almost totally destroyed around 115mph or so.

The wind turbines are about an order of magnitude LESS vulnerable than transmission lines and other power infrastructure.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2012
The residence time of CO2 is only about 5 years. Of course mans contribution is miniscule.

But certainly if you want CO2 to go down, the only way is to embrace shale gas.

http://wattsupwit...is-year/

Any country that has banned drilling for shale gas HATES the world.
BaconBits
3.8 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2012
NP & Ryg you show up in every article about AGW and keep misstating evidence or making claims that reflect no comprehension of the basic science. You two need to come with your own surgeon general's warning.

"For anyone reading the comments section these two (NotParker & Rygges..) are completely unreliable sources of any information. They lie and misconstrue everything about climate science.

You will learn nothing useful from them accept the art of misdirection and obfuscation."
gregor1
2.5 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2012
These guys are not scientists by anyone's measure but high priests of the Church of Climatology. Once again my favorite quote
"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
gregor1
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2012
I'd like to add my critiqe but there is not the space and it's done very well herehttp://wattsupwit...at-wave/
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (16) Jul 03, 2012
the basic science.

From what I understand from the AGWites, the basic science is that the 15um absorption band of CO2 traps ALL the this extra energy that will destroy the planet.
Using Planck's equation, the amount of energy 'trapped' by this CO2 band is ...not much.
So what is the basic science except the AGWite GCM that cannot explain the MWP?
jamesrm
3.7 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2012
"NP & Ryg you show up in every article about......
You will learn nothing useful from them accept the art of misdirection and obfuscation"

With all the disinformational resources of the fossil fuel industry at their disposal they aren't even good at that, always the same old links to the same discredited industry shills.

The only way their opinions will change is if payments from likes of the Koch brothers stop.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2012
opinions will change

If the science is REALLY sound, opinions don't matter much.

But AGWites like to project their tactics on those who don't agree. They assume we are being paid because they are useful idiots for the socialists and assume we are 'useful idiots' for supporting individual liberty and free markets.
Think about it. AGWites are OPPOSED to the individual liberty and free markets that benefit ALL. Including AGWite idiots.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 03, 2012
Note that this happens while a couple of freak La Nina (also climate extremes!) have kept the ocean surface cold and the average GW trend down. When their effect goes, *it will be hotter extremes*!

And what is up with the guys who doesn't know that atmospheric circulation distributes CO2 globally? That is why GW gases makes for a _global_ warming.

@ StarGazer2011: "ahh I get it. Weather isnt climate,".

In a trending climate regime _weather extremes_ are climate. As the article notes, many more warm extremes than cold, because the trend drags the noise with up. Even science denialists usually agree on the GW observation, if not the AGW cause.

Also, the scientist expressly used this as an illustration, not the other way around. If you want attribution, you need to work the numbers. Since 1-2 years they can do seasonal regional climate attributions in some cases. Maybe they can tell us at years end if it was AGW. If not, it follows the trend.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 03, 2012
"NP & Ryg you show up in every article about AGW and keep misstating evidence or making claims that reflect no comprehension of the basic science. You two need to come with your own surgeon general's warning."

It is easy to see they are trolling. They can't even stick to the scientist work, but attacks the science in general as if they had an alternative climate science which predicts all what the current science can.

They can only drag out solar forcing, which is now rejected as sufficient, then turn around and claim that the greenhouse that solar forcing works with is *weaker or non-existent*. Stupid is as stupid does, way to go!

And then the Gish Gallop makes the case immediately.

They aren't even good at what they do.
gregor1
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2012
Trenberth himself said in the leaked emails "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't" Overpeck is having us on. This maybe what's really happening
http://wattsupwit...in-1997/
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2012
The only 'science' behind AGW is that the GCM can't deal with water vapor, the MOST significant greenhouse gas.
CO2 is well mixed so tweak a few varibles called 'forcing functions' and viola, CO2 is BAD and humans are to blame.
This way the AGWites can advocate socialism.
It is quite amusing that Eron led the charge promoting the Kyoto treaty.
gregor1
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2012
Seth Borenstein also interviewed prominent climate scientist Judith Curry when writing this report. Strange that he decided to leave her comments out. Read this and make up your own mind whether he's writing politically motivated propaganda or not.http://judithcurr...ks-like/
rynox
4.3 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2012
This is well-meaning, but much of the climate weirdness this year is due to a strong negative phase arctic oscillation. When arctic oscillation returns to a more positive position, weather patterns will return to "normal" and the naysayers will say "see we told you", completely ignoring the steady and dangerous climb in global temperatures.
julianpenrod
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2012
Actually, StarGazer2011's assessment of expected claims of pole warming, if not a lie, is a glaring misinterpretation, incidating a questionable ability to understand the situation enough to be trusted.
The most the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will say is that the poles are expected to increase in temperature faster than the tropics, and only for the moment. But, if they increase only .01 degree per year faster, that still is swifter, but not so significantly so. Too, and among the most important things, the tropics are at an average between 75 and 100 degrees, while the poles are an average -25 degrees. If the tropics rose by 10 degrees and the poles by 20, the poles would still be about 37 degrees below freezing year round, while the tropics would go to an average of about 98. And that is still a massive temperature differential.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2012
Global Average temp May 1936 13.91
Global Average temp May 2012 14.65

Global Average temp June 1936 13.93
Global Average temp June 2012 14.75 (est.)

"This is very similar to 1936." - Ryggtard

Denial of reality runs very deep in RyggTard Libertarian Liedeology.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2012
Given that Judith Curry decided to publish in her quack "journal" that the sun was made from iron, her opinions on climate change hold very little sway with me.

In fact on a scale of 0 to 10 of credibility, she ranks a -5.

"Strange that he decided to leave her comments out." - GregorTard

The only people that Denialists can find to support their idiocy are Alzheimers patients, the criminally insane, the criminally corrupt, and complete incompetents like Judith Curry.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2012
Water vapor feedback is included in all atmospheric climate models.

"The only 'science' behind AGW is that the GCM can't deal with water vapor" - RyggTard

What the models do not model well are clouds, and clouds are not water vapor, as any competent grade 8 student can tell you.

This tells me that RyggTard is operating at a lower intellectual capacity than a competent grade 8 student.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2012
Of course the mixing of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly measured by satellite and ground based observatories. CO2 is demonstrably well mixed.

Why RyggTard asserts that it is the mixing that causes CO2 to be BAD is beyond my capacity to comprehend. His whining is not rational and does not mesh with physical reality or physical science.

"CO2 is well mixed so tweak a few varibles called 'forcing functions' and viola, CO2 is BAD" - RyggTard

Perhaps he will conclude that the heat related reduction in world grain production just doesn't politically exist. A phrase I have seen many Libertarians employ in order to ignore reality.

I doubt if he will be able to ignore the increase in the price of his bread. But no doubt he will fabricate some nonsense about how it is all dat evils gubderment's fault.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (9) Jul 04, 2012
Yes. Trenberth was lamenting the lack of a comprehensive observation network that would allow where the energy input to the system is actually going.

Since his complaint there have been a number of attribution studies that have provided the answer, although in a less convenient and less precise form.

Here is one of them....

http://www.skepti...nal.html

"we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't" - GregorTard quoting Trenberth out of context.

Trenberth's desire is now partially appeased.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2012
Yes. And another reason your whining is pointless.

"If the science is REALLY sound, opinions don't matter much." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose...

http://www.ipcc.c.../133.htm

"The residence time of CO2 is only about 5 years." - ParkerTard

Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.

ParkerTard,UbvonTard,sunshinehours1, or whatever else it is calling itself today has proven itself to be a congenital and perpetual liar. Given the vast amount of time he has spent under these false identities posting anti-warming nonsense to the net, he either must be unemployed or in the paid employ of the Carbon Industry.

Either way, he is mentally diseased.
NotParker
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose...

http://www.ipcc.c.../133.htm

"The residence time of CO2 is only about 5 years."


Correct.

http://hockeyscht...eve.html
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2012
From the article:

Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.

These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change,
Oh brother, like nothing like this has ever happend before...

"The 1936 North American heat wave was the most severe heat wave in the modern history of North America. It took place in the middle of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl of the 1930s, and caused catastrophic human suffering and an enormous economic toll. The death toll exceeded 5,000, and huge numbers of crops were destroyed by the heat and lack of moisture. Many state and city record high temperatures set during the 1936 heat wave still stand to this day."

http://en.wikiped...eat_wave
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2012
Oh brother, like nothing like this has ever happend before...

Why bother keeping a record of past events if no ever reads it?

This 'modern' generation seems to believe that if something new has happened to them it is new to humanity.
Every time a celebrity has a baby they feel the need to write a book to tell everyone else how to take care of babies.
gregor1
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 04, 2012
Since you Vendi seem to like ad hominem attacks maybe we should all have a look at you for a change
http://www.freag....t_nudds.
Why should we listen to you? How many people do you want to kill?
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2012
"Oh brother, like nothing like this has ever happend before..."
Surely the point is to be objective - and to put all the data together - and keep our eye on the trends. I don't see any one saying that heat events have never happened - this is a straw man. A common criticism from gregor etc. is that the climate models are worthless - as they are not supported by actual events. Well - don't the models predict that the globe will warm, and extreme events will become more frequent (not that they never happened in the past). So putting this data http://data.giss....ig.B.gif alongside the cumulative data expressed in this kind of article http://en.wikiped...at_waves - surely gives us some real cause to sit up and pay attention...
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (15) Jul 05, 2012
Well - don't the models predict that the globe will warm, and extreme events will become more frequent (not that they never happened in the past).
Actually and originally, they didn't predict extreme events, but rather "increasing drought and desertification." These didn't happen, but we did have a wild hurricane season a few years back, so they all jumped on the "extreme weather events" bandwagon.

That's the problem with AGW "science" and "scientists." Their predictions are notoriously unreliable, but like any good scam artist, they're opportunistic. They twist every weather phenomena to their advantage. When it's hot (like now in the US), it's AGW. When it's cold (like last year in the US), it's AGW. If it's windy, it's AGW. If it's calm, it's AGW. Etc., etc.. So my question is: What would NOT AGW look like?

Seriously. I'm not kidding:

"Gore: Global Warming Causing Record Cold, Snow"

http://www.newsma...d/384729

djr
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2012
"Gore: Global Warming Causing Record Cold, Snow" When you continually invoke Gore - you show me that you are only interested in pushing a political agenda - and not discussing science. When you call AGW a scam - you show me that you have made up your mind - and don't care that thousands of dedicated scientists are working hard to help us understand a complex system - that of course has serious consequences for us as a species. I believe the facts show that the models are being developed - to help us understand this system. Previous predictions of a warming climate - melting ice sheets, melting glaciers, and more extreme weather events appear to be unfolding. http://epa.gov/cl...ure.html

The scientists are not trying to scam us - just help us understand our world. Your confirmation bias is every bit as strong as mine.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 05, 2012
The scientists are not trying to scam us -

But they are aiding and abetting those who are.
So yes, they ARE trying to scam us if they don't rebut the scammers.

djr, to validate a GCM model, use data from the past. How well does it match up with objective observations? How well do the GCMs retrodict?
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 05, 2012
[q9But they are aiding and abetting those who are.
So yes, they ARE trying to scam us if they don't rebut the scammers.
Well, actually you and your kind are trying to scam us. You're not trying to do your part to save the species but ride it out on the coattails of the effort of those who do.

Capitalism. A nice idea. But if it leads to the production of people like you then you can keep it.
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2012
But they are aiding and abetting those who are.
So yes, they ARE trying to scam us if they don't rebut the scammers.

Well, actually you and your kind are trying to scam us. You're not trying to do your part to save the species but ride it out on the coattails of the effort of those who do.

Capitalism. A nice idea. But if it leads to the production of people like you then you can keep it.

(reposted because of formatting issues)
djr
5 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2012
"if they don't rebut the scammers." Science by it's construction rebuts scammers. If observations don't match reality - science digs into the situation to find out why. Climate science is complex. Do you not advocate studying our planet - and trying to understand how it all works? Do you understand how complex these things are? I have a friend who is a microbiologist. He studies one specific bacteria. If you pick up a hand full of dirt - you hold millions of microorganisms in your hand - most of them have never been studied. Do you understand how complex this stuff is? We are having trouble figuring out what is causing colony collapse syndrome in the bees - and without the bees - we are in trouble. Scientists are not scammers - they are very smart people trying to understand our universe.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2012
Science by it's construction rebuts scammers.

Not the papers I read hinting at AGW for future funding.
Climate science is complex.

Really? But it can predict disaster in 10 years?
Scientists are not scammers - they are very smart people trying to understand our universe.

And need to have their research funded.
You're not trying to do your part to save the species

No, I am not trying to 'save the species'. I am trying to promote liberty for the individual humans and by doing so create a more robust society of humans. Free markets and individual liberty are PROVEN to be the MOST efficient way to conserve resources. Central planning/socialism has PROVEN to fail to conserve and allocate resources efficient.
'Saving the species' allows one to kill some to save the others. That is the socialist way. And many 'scientists' support this to keep their funding from the state.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2012
When you continually invoke Gore
Straw man. I randomly use a Gore reference once, and now I'm continually invoking Gore? Hardly.

When you call AGW a scam...
Well, what else do you call a self-perpetuating act of disinformation for personal gain? Seriously, what have the scientists done to "protect" the environment? How many of them use sail to arrive at their various destinations of study and conference? Any? None?

that of course has serious consequences for us as a species.
What "consequences?" Didn't you know year to year food production is up? ...disease and mortality are down?

Previous predictions of a warming climate - melting ice sheets, melting glaciers, and more extreme weather events appear to be unfolding.
Sure, when you claim every possibility as a prediction, you're bound to get it right. Try it from the opposite side of the coin. What does NOT AGW look like?

Continued...
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2012
Your confirmation bias is every bit as strong as mine.
No it's not. I don't "believe" in NOT AGW. And I don't justify my opinion based upon some preferred social model.

And, I don't obfuscate and/or co-opt the facts in order to support my point of view or ignore points of view I dislike.

And, I don't deny that climate change is a natural and expected occurrence and we're not seeing anything that hasn't already occurred in the past.

And (most importantly) I don't incite unnecessary "Chicken Little" panic at every opportunity.

Seriously, if AGW is such a problem, why are mortality and disease rates down? What, really, is the "problem" you're trying to fix?
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2012
It is always fascinating to read the insane comments from the Petrol terrorists. To deny the cause of the current extreme weather events as not being Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW or Man-made) is sick, and morally corrupt.

The analogy with AGW is not "Chicken Little" but "Humpty Dumpty". Because once this egg is broken, there is no way you can put it back together again.


djr
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2012
There are many points in your rant - I will choose to address a couple.

"Seriously, what have the scientists done to "protect" the environment?" Scientists have done a great deal in their quest to help us understand the universe - and to help us realize when there are environmental problems - and work on fixes. Recently I linked an article that showed that the water quality in the East River of NY has improved - due to the efforts of scientists and policy makers. Physorg recently published a report regarding the rivers in England - and how they are improving from a bio-diversity perspective. Another article talked about the successes of the clean air act.
"if AGW is such a problem, why are mortality and disease rates down?" What a stupid question. Mortality rates are down due to better nutrition - healthcare - puplic health etc. Can you show me any science that suggests that climate change is going to reduce mortality rates?

Yes your confirmation bias is obvious.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2012
To deny the cause of the current extreme weather events as not being Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW or Man-made) is sick, and morally corrupt.

AGWites first must provide the evidence to reject the null hypothesis that humans are not causing AGW.

Because once this egg is broken, there is no way you can put it back together again.


Put what back together?
The earth has been from one climate extreme, ice ball to tropical. Looks like the earth does just fine putting itself back together.
NotParker
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 05, 2012
It is always fascinating to read the insane comments from the Petrol terrorists. To deny the cause of the current extreme weather events


You mean the extreme cold in the Pacific North West and the UK and Florida was caused by CO2?

There has been a massive drop in CO2 production by the USA because of shale gas. The US will be back to 1990 levels.

The "Petrol Terrorists" like me urge all countries to search and develop shale gas. The green idiots like you say no to shale gas.
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2012
It is always fascinating to read the insane comments from the Petrol terrorists. To deny the cause of the current extreme weather events


You mean the extreme cold in the Pacific North West and the UK and Florida was caused by CO2?

There has been a massive drop in CO2 production by the USA because of shale gas. The US will be back to 1990 levels.

The "Petrol Terrorists" like me urge all countries to search and develop shale gas. The green idiots like you say no to shale gas.


New Zealand has also been very cold in June.

http://www.stuff....-records

Tasmania

http://www.themer...ews.html

If you think CO2 cause weather then it must also cause cold weather.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2012
"ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose..." - VD

"Correct" - ParkerTard

If you know that your lies are so easily exposed then why you continue to lie?

No need to answer, we know that you are mentally diseased.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 05, 2012
Oh brother, like nothing like this has ever happend before..." - UbVonTard

A year without winter followed by summer in spring and thousands of heat records bring broken daily.

When has that happened before?
xen_uno
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2012
I don't get you anti-AGW'ers. The facts are that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased dramatically in last 50 years or so and CO2 is a greenhouse gas ..

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

So given those facts how can you deny what has already been proven? If you can't understand the data why are you commenting on something you know nothing about? I'm sure the earth has experienced this before but we weren't around to note the effects.

The earth does have some heat regulating mechanisms, thru reforestation and worldwide plankton blooms, among others. In any case, it needed a lot of time to reach an equilibrium again. That time element is something humans won't give it, as we are still ruining both land and sea. The AGW deniers know that AGW is happening. They would just rather bury their heads in the sand and wait for the environmental armageddon, because they are unwilling to make any sacrifices for long term survival of all creatures, including us.
EverythingsJustATheory
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2012
Since the denialists love anecdotal evidence so much, here's some:

I've lived in Washington DC my whole life (30 years). As a kid the Potomac River froze over frequently each winter. In the last 10 years, I can't remember a time it has froze over, and I cross it every day on my way to work.
xen_uno
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2012
^^ an equilibrium that is comfortable for humans that is. Appears as tho we are creating a new one or revisiting an old one that may be hostile to life as we know it.
xen_uno
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2012
The problem that denialist's have is the approach to remediation. All the solutions are tax based, as if there is some economical alternative waiting in the wings. Fossil fuels drive the global economy. There is no alternative. Living expenses are going to rise dramatically. Even if mankind were to do the right things starting now, such as population control, strict land use policies, strict environmental policies, etc, there is still momentum from damage already done. This will take decades if not centuries for nature to repair. Global economies and global greed will not have the patience.
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2012
Since the denialists love anecdotal evidence so much, here's some:

I've lived in Washington DC my whole life (30 years). As a kid the Potomac River froze over frequently each winter. In the last 10 years, I can't remember a time it has froze over, and I cross it every day on my way to work.


And what runs into the Potomac from cities? Warm water from cities. And a million other things.

"When it rains, the water running along the gutters in the street vanishes down storm drains. Where does the water go? The water in a storm drain does not go to a treatment plant. This runoff drains directly into a local stream. All our local streams in Fairfax County feed into the Potomac River, which empties into the Chesapeake Bay. Nothing is removed from the water. That means pet waste, yard debris, fertilizer, motor oil, pesticides and trash all have the potential to flow into our streams and the Chesapeake Bay."

And how big is the urban heat island around the Potomac? 7-9C.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2012
So given those facts how can you deny what has already been proven?

Correlation is not causation.
Nothing has been proven.
A model is fit to the data from an emergaent system that can't retro-dict climate and makes wild claims about future climate.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
Basic Radiative physics tells us the earth should be warming as we see.

"Correlation is not causation." - RyggTard

Observation has confirmed theory.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
The warming seen today was computed 150 years ago, without modeling by Lord Kelvin.

A model is fit to the data from an emergaent system that can't retro-dict climate and makes wild claims about future climate.' - RyggTard

Meanwhile Libertarian Economic modeling can't seem to figure out why borrowing trillions of dollars to pay for trickle down economics has created a deficit of trillions of dollars.

Libertarian Filth.

ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2012
To deny the cause of the current extreme weather events as not being Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW or Man-made)
How so? Are you trying to suggest the world has never seen extreme weather events until now? Hardly.

... is sick, and morally corrupt.
Year to year food production is up, and disease and mortality are down. How is this "sick, and morally corrrupt."

The analogy with AGW is not "Chicken Little" but "Humpty Dumpty". Because once this egg is broken, there is no way you can put it back together again.
What "egg" are you talking about? What's broken that deserves panicking over?

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2012
(I never murdered that man. Are you trying to suggest that the world has never seen anyone die before? Hardly.) - VbBonTard

"How so? Are you trying to suggest the world has never seen extreme weather events until now? Hardly." - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2012
Scientists have done a great deal in their quest to help us understand the universe - and to help us realize when there are environmental problems - and work on fixes. Recently I linked an article that showed that the water quality in the East River of NY has improved - due to the efforts of scientists and policy makers. Physorg recently published a report regarding the rivers in England - and how they are improving from a bio-diversity perspective. Another article talked about the successes of the clean air act.
This is a non-answer and you know it. None of this has anything to do with AGW. So again (and more specifically): What have the AGW scientists done to "protect" the environment? How many of them use sail to arrive at their various destinations of study and conference? Any? None?

continued...

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
"Year to year food production is up" - UbVonTard

Ukraine, the third-biggest corn exporter, lowered its corn-crop estimate by 8 percent because of hot weather damage.

http://www.busine...-by-heat

U.S. Corn Crop Searing in the Heat and Drought
Overall, the national corn crop is rated at 48% "good", down from 56% last week, down from 63% the week prior, and down from 72% good a month ago.

http://larouchepa...de/23236

Wheat is in a similar state.

Expect higher food prices.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2012
What did Issac Newton do to cure cholera and the plague?

What did Einstein do to cure polio?

"So again (and more specifically): What have the AGW scientists done to "protect" the environment?" - UbVonTard

Poor UbvonTard/ParkerTard/sunshinehours1 or whatever it is caling itself today. It's brain disease appears to be terminal.
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2012
What a stupid question. Mortality rates are down due to better nutrition - healthcare - puplic health etc. Can you show me any science that suggests that climate change is going to reduce mortality rates?
Again, a non-answer. You're avoiding the question altogether. So again: If AGW is such a problem, why are mortality and disease rates down? What, really, is the "problem" you're trying to fix?

And the science IS on my side. Cold is much deadlier than heat:

"Our data suggest that any increases in mortality due to increased temperatures would be outweighed by much larger short term declines in cold related mortalities"

http://www.bmj.co...670.full

Yes your confirmation bias is obvious.
No, that would be yours, as you're too biased to even answer straight questions.

Try again.

ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2012
A year without winter followed by summer in spring and thousands of heat records bring broken daily.

When has that happened before?
VDtard's latest lie is easy to expose:

Weren't you the one complaining of frozen cherry blossoms? How did that happen without winter?
xen_uno
3 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
Ven - "Meanwhile Libertarian Economic modeling can't seem to figure out why borrowing trillions of dollars to pay for trickle down economics has created a deficit of trillions of dollars."

.. and some democrats can't seem to figure out that taxing the hell out of everybody and redistributing the wealth (aka socialism) destroys the entrepreneurial spirit and any incentive for one to strive for a better life, which damages the economy as a whole. Case in point ... do you realize the top tax bracket before Reagan was 70%? That's rite ... 70% of gross income. The US under Carter (your liberal democratic buddy) was suffering from an energy crisis, inflation, and stagnating economy. Reagan came in and helped pull the US out of it's rut. I won't put all blame on Carter as the energy crisis and it's consequences would have damaged the credibility of any president. As for Reagan, I wasn't fan then but I have different view of him now.
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2012
atmospheric CO2 levels have increased dramatically in last 50 years or so and CO2 is a greenhouse gas ..

...how can you deny what has already been proven?
What's "proven" about it? If CO2 was such a factor, why hasn't the climate continued to warm in spite of increasing CO2 levels? Wouldn't you expect the elevated CO2 levels to put MORE pressure on the heat/temperature gradient, preventing statistical stalls?

they are unwilling to make any sacrifices for long term survival of all creatures, including us.
Tell us about the "sacrifices" you're making. Show an example.
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2012
Since the denialists love anecdotal evidence so much, here's some:
It's funny you should say this, and then use the typical AGWite anecdote. What's happening globally? Do you know?

I've lived in Washington DC my whole life (30 years). As a kid the Potomac River froze over frequently each winter. In the last 10 years, I can't remember a time it has froze over, and I cross it every day on my way to work.
This lie is easy to expose:

20007:

http://www.youtub...BJl_axJU

2009:

http://ireport.cn...C-198490

2011:

http://www.youtub...6dQd_xDA

Get a clue.
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2012
"Year to year food production is up" - Uba
Ukraine, the third-biggest corn exporter, lowered its corn-crop estimate by 8 percent because of hot weather damage.

Wheat is in a similar state.
Straw man. This is a regional anecdote.

Expect higher food prices.
Food prices naturally and historically vary by region and crop success/failure. What's new about this?

Scaremonger. You're using a non-AGW issue to incite panic over AGW.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
It is a fact that the cherry, apple, peach, etc, season has been destroyed in much of the world as a result of weeks of warm weather followed by a few hours of seasonally norm nighttime temperatures.

"Weren't you the one complaining of frozen cherry blossoms? " - UbVonTard

I have posted links to various sources of information confirming what you claimed was a lie about the crop devastation.

Clearly you are the liar here. And a chronic one as well.

You are mentally diesased UbvonTard,Parkertard,sunshinehours1 and whatever else you are calling yourself today.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
Given that the U.S. is the largest grain provider in the world and the Ukraine the third largest, the massive crop losses currently occurring in those regions are going to cause higher food prices and reduce food availability for the rest of the world.

"Straw man. This is a regional anecdote." - UbVontard

Your denial that there are any crop losses mirrors your claim that there were no soft fruit losses during spring, which has turned out to represent an over 90 percent loss of crop in many regions.

You are a chronic Liar UbVonTard/ParkerTard/sunshinehours1 and whatever else you are calling yourself today.
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2012
So again (and more specifically): What have the AGW scientists done to "protect" the environment? - Uba
What did Issac Newton do to cure cholera and the plague?

What did Einstein do to cure polio?
This is a red herring fallacy. You're removing the scientists from their area of expertise, whereas I confined my question to their area of expertise.

Poor Venditard Detard-of-tards, Litetard, or whatever it is calling itself today. It's brain disease appears to be terminal.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
"Corn futures have surged more than 30 per cent since the middle of June, far outpacing the 10 per cent gain in the broad Reuters/Jefferies CRB index of 19 commodities not to mention specific stuff like gold and crude oil."

http://www.theglo...4388790/

The
forecast for world grain carryover stocks at the end of
2012/13 is reduced by 13m. tons this month, to 360m.,
which is now below the 369m. estimated for the end of
2011/12. Wheat carryovers have been reduced further
to a four-year low of 182m. tons.

"You're using a non-AGW issue to incite panic over AGW." - UbVontard
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
Weren't you the one complaining of frozen cherry blossoms? - Uba
It is a fact that the cherry, apple, peach, etc, season has been destroyed in much of the world as a result of weeks of warm weather followed by a few hours of seasonally norm nighttime temperatures.
So now it's "seasonal norm" damage? How does that happen in late Spring?

I have posted links to various sources of information confirming what you claimed was a lie about the crop devastation.
And I proved it was a lie, using your own links.

Clearly you are the liar here. And a chronic one as well.
And yet again and again, I catch you in these lies. How does this happen?

You are mentally diseased Venditard Detard-of-tards, Litetard, Scott Douglas, Scott Nudds, and whatever else you are calling yourself today.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
What an odd complaint when virtually every scientists dredged up from nowhere to support their/your idiocy has no expertise Climatology.

Fred Singer, for example isn't a climatologist, neither is idso and neither is anyone who posts circle jerk articles in Whatt'sup which is run by a former Radio weather announcer.

"You're removing the scientists from their area of expertise, whereas I confined my question to their area of expertise." - UbVonTard

What did Newton do to land men on the moon?
What did Einstein do to make coal powered plants cleaner?
What did Linus Pauling do to cure Rabies?
What did Lawrence Salk do to perfect heart transplants?

You have a mental disease UbvonTard/ParkerTard/sunshinehours1, and whatever else it is you are calling yourself these days.

Ge help immediately.
xen_uno
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
tuba - "What's "proven" about it? If CO2 was such a factor, why hasn't the climate continued to warm in spite of increasing CO2 levels?"

Ha ... cherry picking what you want to read and links to click on? The article itself and several links provided by the more intelligent posters have addressed any regional variability AND the average rise in temperature. I'm not going to read for you or to you as I trust you have decent comprehension skills. Anyways, I've seen your type before and I'll bet your a conspiracy theorist, right? You saw bombs go off before the WTC towers fell rite? The puffs of smoke were from demo charges, not from large volumes of air being rapidly squeezed out by the pancaking floors above them, correct?

I meant "they" in a general sense, as "they" is "we" and "we" is mankind all over planet. I recycle as much as possible and bicycle and walk alot. My demands on Earth are very low but need to be lower. That's my honest assessment. Bet you don't do jack ...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
It isn't difficult to comprehend unless you are an absolute moron.

You seem incapable of understanding.

"So now it's "seasonal norm" damage?" - UbVonTard

Seasonal winter never arrived in the U.S. or most of southern Canada. February temperatures reached highs not reached until mid spring. March Temperatures were that of early summer.

With the exception of one week in which night time temperatures fell to an approximate seasonal norm of -6. Temperatures far too low for the buds on the fruit trees that had developed early due to the excessively warm weather.

The brief return to seasonal normal temperatures destroyed the soft fruit crop, in most places by close to 100 percent.

You are mentally diseased UbVontard/ParkerTard/sunshinehours1 or whatever else you are calling yourself these days.

Get psychiatric help immediately.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
Ontario fruit crops decimated by frost

http://www.citytv...by-frost

A catastrophic freeze has wiped out about 80 per cent of Ontarios apple crop and has the provinces fruit industry looking at losses already estimated at more than $100 million.

This is the worst disaster fruit growers have ever, ever experienced, Harrow-area orchard owner Keith Wright said Friday.

http://www.windso...zpEhP7NS

"And I proved it was a lie, using your own links." - UbVonTard

You just proved yourself to be a bald faced liar. Just like every other Conservative who has ever existed.

Filth.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
Given that the U.S. is the largest grain provider in the world and the Ukraine the third largest, the massive crop losses currently occurring in those regions are going to cause higher food prices and reduce food availability for the rest of the world.
Straw man. How is this regional problem an AGW issue? Are you suggesting crops have never been devastated by heat before?

Your denial that there are any crop losses
Straw man. I never made such a claim. In fact, quite the opposite.

mirrors your claim that there were no soft fruit losses during spring,
Another straw man. When did I supposedly make this claim?

which has turned out to represent an over 90 percent loss of crop in many regions.
Again with the regional crop failure. What's this have to do with AGW?

And what "many regions" are you talking about? Do you mean Michigan? That's one region.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
UbVonTard is being his typical idiot self.

No "sacrifice" is needed, other than the "sacrifice" of living an exceptionally wasteful American lifestyle.

"Tell us about the "sacrifices" you're making." - UbVonTard

I don't want for anything, and yet my resource consumption is a fraction of yours.

Mostly because you are an idiot.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (16) Jul 06, 2012
"Corn futures have surged more than 30 per cent since the middle of June, far outpacing the 10 per cent gain in the broad Reuters/Jefferies CRB index of 19 commodities not to mention specific stuff like gold and crude oil."

The forecast for world grain carryover stocks at the end of
2012/13 is reduced by 13m. tons this month, to 360m.,
which is now below the 369m. estimated for the end of
2011/12. Wheat carryovers have been reduced further
to a four-year low of 182m. tons.
So are you suggesting commodities prices have never varied before?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
Given that the U.S. is the largest grain provider in the world and the Ukraine the third largest, the massive crop losses currently occurring in those regions are going to cause higher food prices and reduce food availability for the rest of the world.

"Straw man. This is a regional anecdote." - UbVontard

Your denial that there are any crop losses mirrors your claim that there were no soft fruit losses during spring, which has turned out to represent an over 90 percent loss of crop in many regions.

You are a chronic Liar UbVonTard/ParkerTard/sunshinehours1 and whatever else you are calling yourself today.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
No, I am claiming that the spectacular reduction in anticipated U.S. crop yields, and Ukrainian crop yields is evidenced by the fact that grain futures are rising rather spectacularly.

"So are you suggesting commodities prices have never varied before?" = UbVonTard

You on the other hand are implying that no such thing is happening.

Filth.

You are a chronic Liar UbVonTard/ParkerTard/sunshinehours1 and whatever else you are calling yourself today.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
What an odd complaint when virtually every scientists dredged up from nowhere to support their/your idiocy has no expertise Climatology.

Fred Singer, for example isn't a climatologist, neither is idso and neither is anyone who posts circle jerk articles in Whatt'sup which is run by a former Radio weather announcer.
Straw man. When have I cited these sources?

What did Newton do to land men on the moon?
A lot. He made the basic discoveries upon which the moon landings were based.
What did Einstein do to make coal powered plants cleaner?
So now you're claiming Einstein was a coal powerplant engineer?
What did Linus Pauling do to cure Rabies?
So now he was a disease specialist?
What did Lawrence Salk do to perfect heart transplants?
So now he was a cardiologist?

Are red herring and straw man arguments all you have?
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
cherry picking what you want to read and links to click on?
This must be your problem. I read everything.

The article itself and several links ...have addressed any regional variability AND the average rise in temperature.
Not even close.

I'm not going to read for you or to you
Meaning the claim you made above is false, and you know it.

I've seen your type before and I'll bet your a conspiracy theorist, right?
Ad hominems now? Really?

I recycle as much as possible and bicycle and walk alot. My demands on Earth are very low but need to be lower. That's my honest assessment.
In other words, you don't do jack.

Bet you don't do jack ...
I actually work in a leading environmental protection organization, specifically working with atmospheric pollutants relating to fossil fuel consumption.

Tell me again what you do, so I can laugh again!
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
In other words you work for a lying Anti-environmental, Anti-Science think tank writing nonsense denialist propaganda.

"I actually work in a leading environmental protection organization, specifically working with atmospheric pollutants relating to fossil fuel consumption." - UbVonTard

Filth.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 06, 2012
With the exception of one week in which night time temperatures fell to an approximate seasonal norm of -6. Temperatures far too low for the buds on the fruit trees that had developed early due to the excessively warm weather.
So you're claiming there was absolutely no winter, and yet it got down to a "seasonal norm" of -6 degrees? My, but that's one c-c-c-cold Spring! What's it normally like in the winter there?

The brief return to seasonal normal temperatures destroyed the soft fruit crop, in most places by close to 100 percent.
Ooh, I'll call this lie. What "most places" had a close to 100% crop failure? Turkey? (Turkey is the world's biggest cherry crop producer)

You are mentally diseased Venditard Detard-of-tards, Litetard, Scott Douglas, Scott Nudds, or whatever else you are calling yourself these days.

Get psychiatric help immediately.
xen_uno
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
tuba - "I actually work in a leading environmental protection organization, specifically working with atmospheric pollutants relating to fossil fuel consumption."

Ya? Well Monsanto bought the leading bee lab to head off any negative publicity linked to their products. Wonder if BP owns your company? I could see you getting paid to ignore the facts and come up with spin ... unless, as I suspect, your a secretary there ... then your lack of science understanding would make sense.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
Ontario fruit crops decimated by frost
Again with the regional crop reports? What's this have to do with AGW?

And are you now claiming cold temperatures are the result of AGW?

A catastrophic freeze has wiped out about 80 per cent of Ontarios apple crop
LOL. So now it's not about frozen cherry blossoms anymore?

You just proved yourself to be a bald faced liar.
LOL. You just keep tying yourself up in knots, with one lie after another.

ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
VDtard is being his typical idiot self.

No "sacrifice" is needed, other than the "sacrifice" of living an exceptionally wasteful American lifestyle.
Jelous, much?

I don't want for anything, and yet my resource consumption is a fraction of yours.
Then why are you so busy trying to take from everyone else?

You are a transparent idiot.

ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
Given that the U.S. is the largest grain provider in the world
Must be the result of our "exceptionally wasteful American lifestyle."

and the Ukraine the third largest, the massive crop losses currently occurring in those regions are going to cause higher food prices and reduce food availability for the rest of the world.
Really?

Ukraine's grain exports jump 81%

http://www.agricu...-ar25032

Ukraine Corn Exports on the Rise

http://www.thecro...the-rise

So are they selling off all of their own food now?

Your denial that there are any crop losses
Straw man.

mirrors your claim that there were no soft fruit losses during spring,
Straw man.

which has turned out to represent an over 90 percent loss of crop in many regions.
Lie.

You are a chronic Liar Venditard Detard-of-tards, Litetard, and whatever else you are calling yourself today.

ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
So are you suggesting commodities prices have never varied before? - Uba
No, I am claiming that the spectacular reduction in anticipated U.S. crop yields, and Ukrainian crop yields is evidenced by the fact that grain futures are rising rather spectacularly.
So?

You on the other hand are implying that no such thing is happening.
Straw man. When did I supposedly make this claim? In fact, I implied quite the opposite.

VDtard filth.

You are a chronic Liar Venditard Detard-of-tards, Litetard, Scott Douglas, Scott Nudds and whatever else you are calling yourself today.

ubavontuba
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2012
In other words you work for a lying Anti-environmental, Anti-Science think tank writing nonsense denialist propaganda.
You have quite the active imagination there, VDtard.

ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
Ya? Well Monsanto bought the leading bee lab to head off any negative publicity linked to their products. Wonder if BP owns your company? I could see you getting paid to ignore the facts and come up with spin ... unless, as I suspect, your a secretary there ... then your lack of science understanding would make sense.
More ad hominems? Pathetic.

If you can't discuss the science, why are you here? Do you really think personal attacks will win the day?
djr
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
This is a non-answer and you know it. None of this has anything to do with AGW. So again (and more specifically): What have the AGW scientists done to "protect" the environment? How many of them use sail to arrive at their various destinations of study and conference? Any? None?

Am I really arguing with that big an idiot? You ask the question "what have scientists done to protect the environment?" clearly implying they have done nothing. I provide several significant examples of how scientists have worked diligently - and protected the environment. You say this is a non answer. And you wonder why those of us interested in science - and discourse get frustrated!! Your ability to reason is on the level of a 3rd grader - you wonder why people like Vendi turn to ad-hominem - reasoning is a complete waste of time.....
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
" clearly implying they have done nothing

No, they have not done nothing.
They have supported the con job of Ehrlich, Gore, Hansen, Mann, IPCC, and Eron to force govts to confiscate wealth and destroy economies.
And they have brought discredit upon themselves and science in general with their chicken little approach and stifling dissent.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
Why isn't AGW 'science' was like Higgs boson science?
Why is it not unfashionable to be a skeptic of Higgs boson science?
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
And they have brought discredit upon themselves and science in general with their chicken little approach and stifling dissent.

They have identified the problem.
They have shown up ways in which the problem might be attacked. It's very valuable to know how to most efficiently go about providing a solution and not go for blind activism.

This gives politicians the ability to make an informed choices.
It gives people the ability to chose the politicians that make the most informed choices (instead of listening to their wallet, their priest, or the crazy voices in their heads - and mostly all three)

As for discredit: The thing is, that ONLY people who are on a par with someone can give (or take away) credit. The obese Lakers fan can give (or take away) 'credit' from the Lakers all he wants - that doesn't alter the quality of the Lakers' play.

Similarly you (or the media) may give or take away 'credit' from scientists. But honestly: that doesn't mean a thing.

ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
They have identified the problem.
They have shown up ways in which the problem might be attacked

They have done more. They have become advocates and joining the political fray.
When you play with pigs you get dirty.
Hansen played with pigs, politicians, and lobbied for Enron. Mann et al and Nature conspired to hype the issue.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
This is a non-answer and you know it. None of this has anything to do with AGW. So again (and more specifically): What have the AGW scientists done to "protect" the environment? How many of them use sail to arrive at their various destinations of study and conference? Any? None?


You ask the question "what have scientists done to protect the environment?" clearly implying they have done nothing. I provide several significant examples of how scientists have worked diligently - and protected the environment. You say this is a non answer. And you wonder why those of us interested in science - and discourse get frustrated!! Your ability to reason is on the level of a 3rd grader - you wonder why people like Vendi turn to ad-hominem - reasoning is a complete waste of time...
Another non-answer. The subject at hand is AGW. Why are you avoiding the question?

xen_uno
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
tuba ...

Q & A for you:

1) Have atmospheric CO2 levels increased in last 50 years?

2) Is CO2 considered a greenhouse gas?

3) If 1 & 2 are true, what are the possible implications of this?

This questionaire should go a long way toward determining if your just another annoying troll ...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
Global warming could be real, it could well be human-caused, and further this COULD have been an Anticipated and Planned Objective.

Let me explain. In order to ensure its survival, our species must leave its nest. If the nest remains comfy and mom keeps bringing us worms, then why leave?

But it has been Obvious for a longer time than we are perhaps aware, that humanity lives in a very precarious state, inhabiting one small and fragile planet in the midst of a very dynamic and dangerous universe.

A chick which consumes the nutrients in its egg, MUST hatch. Hatching is very difficult I suppose, but the chick is compelled to make the effort because it HAS to. It has no choice.

As our environment becomes more hostile we are compelled to devise ways of surviving in it which are directly applicable to our future colonization of space and the other planets. We HAVE to do these things. And if the forced combustion of fossil fuels has gotten us here, might we suspect that it was by Design?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
The ancients were well aware of humanity's potential to soil its nest. Nebucchadnezzar tried to reclaim the euphrates farmland by removing the top few feet of soil which had become saltified from irrigation. He had to abandon the effort.

In the original flood story, the sumerian gods created the deluge because the earth had become overcrowded. Zeus schemed with Themis to cause the great struggle of the Ilian war, 'that the load of death might empty the world'.

Rome and many of the other great centers of civilization were not so much conquered as abandoned when inhabiting them was no longer worth the effort of defending them. Civilization relocated out of necessity.

Ancient Leaders developed a Strategy of preparing mankind for the future because it was incapable of doing this for itself. Mankind was incapable of concerted actions which required suffering and sacrifice, but which absolutely had to be done.

AGW might well prove to be the best thing that happened to humanity.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
1) Have atmospheric CO2 levels increased in last 50 years?
Yes.

2) Is CO2 considered a greenhouse gas?
"Considered?" Yes.

3) If 1 & 2 are true, what are the possible implications of this?
Too vague to answer. I can find no paper on a laboratory experiment which confirms CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today do in fact cause the atmosphere to absorb and retain substantially more heat than at the slightly lower "normal" concentrations.

Here are some typical search results:

"Your search - "Laboratory experiment confirms" "carbon dioxide" greenhouse - did not match any articles."

and:

"No results found for "Laboratory experiment confirms" "carbon dioxide" greenhouse."

Try it yourself, if you don't believe me. Find a paper which describes experimental proof of the concept.

This questionaire should go a long way toward determining if your just another annoying troll ...

"Troll?" Ad hominems again? Why can't AGW alarmists simply discuss the science?
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
@xen_uno (continued)

Furthermore, there's no evidence that warming the earth is necessarily even a bad thing. Cold weather is much more deadly than hot weather;

http://news.heart...-reports

So what's all the fuss about?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
A good place to start is with the Infrared Wall chart available from Raytheon. Planck's equation is there, atmospheric transmission is there, ..
All the basics needed to calculate the energy absorbed at 15 microns by CO2. You will also see the effects of the most significant gas, water vapor.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
The headline is stupid...

"Weather is not climate... unless it supports our argument then it is!"
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
A good place to start is with the Infrared Wall chart available from Raytheon. Planck's equation is there, atmospheric transmission is there, ..
All the basics needed to calculate the energy absorbed at 15 microns by CO2. You will also see the effects of the most significant gas, water vapor.
Pretty graphs are no substitute for experimental evidence.
xen_uno
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2012
Design or fate .. in the end it doesn't matter. Whether the looming disaster known as climate change is in part man made or a purely natural phenomena is irrelevant. The evidence speaks for itself, however. I've posted Agent Smith's quote (Matrix) comparing humans to viruses before. It wasn't intended to be mean, it's just mankind's modus operandi. IMO we are centuries away from routine space travel for colonization. We have to re-engineer homo sapiens first for such an odyssey as we are far too delicate atm. I don't see us ready before worldwide chaos and disarray make the venture impossible.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2012
it's just mankind's modus operandi.

Bull crap.
Humans BUILD and create wealth. There is NO way humans could have expanded so rapidly in the past FEW hundred years if they did not have the capacity for efficiently creating, conserving and using resources.

Planck's equation is a good place to start to predict how little energy is available to be absorbed at 15 microns.
ubavontuba
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2012
Planck's equation is a good place to start to predict how little energy is available to be absorbed at 15 microns.


Okay, I get it. According to the graph, CO2 really isn't even a concern. This must explain the lack of experimental proofs.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
Planck's equation is a good place to start to predict how little energy is available to be absorbed at 15 microns.


Okay, I get it. According to the graph, CO2 really isn't even a concern. This must explain the lack of experimental proofs.

Integrate Planck's equation around 15 microns at 300K and there is very little energy being emitted from the earth.
xen_uno
3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2012
tuba - "Too vague to answer."

Well I wanted your opinion, not your links. Cause and effect. Like an engine for instance ... > Gas vapor and air are brought into a container. One of the container walls (the piston) is free to move. A spark is introduced. What happens? < ...

"Cold weather is much more deadly than hot weather;"

To humans maybe. Permanent average temp changes are very bad for the flora and sea life, which are the base of the food chain. So instead of freezing to death, you starve to death.

Have you ever noticed that in the summer it doesn't rain much? Why is that? Plenty of water vapour in the air. Imagine if the atmosphere became more uniformly hot ... year round (like Venus). Would you see much precipitation? Things to ponder ...
xen_uno
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2012
ryg - "Bull crap.
Humans BUILD and create wealth"

Take your Bull and swallow this ...

Agent Smith - "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

... describes to a T that which is human behavior. Still went over your head? Your "human expansion" relied on surplus of a few key items ... exploitable land and natural resources. Both seem quite finite now don't they?
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
Well I wanted your opinion, not your links. Cause and effect. Like an engine for instance ... > Gas vapor and air are brought into a container. One of the container walls (the piston) is free to move. A spark is introduced. What happens?
Red herring oversimplification.

Cold weather is much more deadly than hot weather;


To humans maybe. Permanent average temp changes are very bad for the flora and sea life, which are the base of the food chain. So instead of freezing to death, you starve to death.
This isn't true. The biosphere is booming. Year to year food production is up.

Have you ever noticed that in the summer it doesn't rain much? Why is that? Plenty of water vapour in the air. Imagine if the atmosphere became more uniformly hot ... year round (like Venus). Would you see much precipitation? Things to ponder ...
You obviously don't even understand the hydrologic cycle.
xen_uno
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2012
So what happens when any creature consumes all the resources and whose very existence in such large numbers is damaging it's environment? Contraction ... painful contraction. Smith's analogy is so true, so applicable, thus I quote it frequently.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2012
So what happens when any creature consumes all the resources and whose very existence in such large numbers is damaging it's environment? Contraction ... painful contraction. Smith's analogy is so true, so applicable, thus I quote it frequently.

Ooh, a movie quote. Is this your idea of science?

You got nothing. Go troll somewhere else.
xen_uno
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
LOL tuba ... just admit you don't have an original opinion OK? You can't think outside the box you live in. You don't have to be a scientist to have a hypothesis, ya know? Tired of going around in circles with you.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
It is quite obvious humans have NOT consumed all resources and is not likely to consume all resources as long as the socialists stay out of control.
Paul Ehrlich lost his bet and will continue to loose his bet.
xen_uno
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2012
Ya a movie quote .. dam accurate one too. Any one with a shred of integrity, intelligence, and objectivity can see that. Retire as a flame baiter tuba ... your baked.
xen_uno
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2012
ryg ... you have a point. All resources have not been consumed but law of supply and demand says that as a resource becomes scarcer, it's price will rise. The cost of living is not static, just securing basic necessities may someday absorb all your income. We have a population problem IMO .. do you acknowledge that?
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
It is quite obvious humans have NOT consumed all resources and is not likely to consume all resources as long as the socialists stay out of control.
Paul Ehrlich lost his bet and will continue to loose his bet.
The most obvious error of the "consumes all the resources" alarmists is they don't even understand the resources. Most consumables are recycled (either naturally, or intentionally). I mean it's not like you reap a harvest once and the field is never usable again.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
ryg ... you have a point. All resources have not been consumed but law of supply and demand says that as a resource becomes scarcer, it's price will rise. The cost of living is not static, just securing basic necessities may someday absorb all your income. We have a population problem IMO .. do you acknowledge that?

No.
We have a liberty problem.
The socialist govt in Zimbabwe demonstrated that quite well.
Cuba in now understanding how their socialism limits their resources. Imagine having to get PERMISSION to plant a garden and sell the produce!
djr
4 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2012
Imagine having to get PERMISSION to plant a garden and sell the produce!

I have a friend in Oklahoma city who grows edible plants in his yard. The city constantly harass him and force him to cut down bushes and trees. They have code enforcement nazis who measure the height of your grass. Check out this story - http://www.foodre...-garden/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
IMO we are centuries away from routine space travel for colonization.
It doesnt have to be routine. One-way to establish independent settlements would be fine. And this could commence within 15 years.
http://news.yahoo...565.html

And colonies will not solve earth problems. Colonists will be capable of filling them up all by themselves. The american colonies did not reduce euro populations.

The important thing is, even if humans die out on earth the species, and all the knowledge it has accumulated, will still survive.
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2012
Another non-answer. The subject at hand is AGW. Why are you avoiding the question?

I am not avoiding any question - you asked a question - I answered that question - and you are too stupid to understand some very simple reasoning. You did not qualify - related to global warming. The point being debated is the influence of science on our process. I argue we should listen to the scientists. You feel that scientists do not do anything to benefit the environment. I proved that you are wrong. You reason on the level of a 3rd grader - and cannot comprehend some very simple logic. It is of course no consequence to me that you are too stupid to know that you are stupid - sure wish you would go and bother other people on a creationist web site though...
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2012
Imagine having to get PERMISSION to plant a garden and sell the produce!

I have a friend in Oklahoma city who grows edible plants in his yard. The city constantly harass him and force him to cut down bushes and trees. They have code enforcement nazis who measure the height of your grass. Check out this story - http://www.foodre...-garden/

Socialism sucks.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
Libertarianism = NeoFascism.

Ayn Rand was a welfare queen.

Her closest deciple, Alan Greenspan, caused the current economic depression.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
Libertarianism = NeoFascism.

Ayn Rand was a welfare queen.

Her closest deciple, Alan Greenspan, caused the current economic depression.
-And right on Schedule I might add. Jolly good show.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2012
Socialism sucks. I agree with you fully - I think that you may be a little mixed up - this is red state America - here in OK we only ever vote Republican with a capitol R. There is a church on every corner - and the code nazis measure the height of your grass. Don't want no idependent thinking here - free thinking is dangerous u know..... leads to devil worship, and sex and other terrible abominations.
djr
4 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
Socialism sucks. For further elaboration of my point - take a look at how the Texas Republican party wishes to ban critical thinking skills - it leads to questioning authority - God forbid. http://www.altern...schools/
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
Socialism sucks. For further elaboration of my point - take a look at how the Texas Republican party wishes to ban critical thinking skills - it leads to questioning authority - God forbid. http://www.altern...schools/

We have a socialist regime that is trying to force more citizens onto welfare, killing businesses and job growth.
Obama socialism sucks.
So you support the separation of school and state following the example of Sweden: vouchers?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
No you don't. You have a failed Capitalist regime that has collapsed under it's own weight of graft, corruption and ignorance.

You are an apologist for that ongoing failure.

"We have a socialist regime that is trying to force more citizens onto welfare" - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
America now starts to dissolve as a viable nation.

Initiative would let voters overrule federal law

http://azdailysun...700.html

"So you support the separation of school and state following the example of Sweden:" - RyggTard

America won't exist as a nation within 10 years.

RyggTard still has failed to respond to American for profit schools teaching their students that the Loch Ness monster exists and is a dinosaur in their attempt to "disprove" evolution.

Conservative Filth.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
"President Obama is gradually transforming America into a socialist authoritarian state. This is the real meaning of his recent decision to grant backdoor amnesty to young illegal immigrants. Mr. Obama is behaving like a Latin American strongman, who asserts arbitrary power and ignores the rule of law. He is assaulting the very pillars of our constitutional republic."
http://www.washin...designs/
Obama refused to enforce immigration laws and threatens any state law enforcement that tries. He refused to enforce the defense of marriage act and tried to gin up a ban on weapons by allowing weapons to be smuggled into Mexico without knowledge of the Mexican govt.
If you support the Declaration of Independence you are considered a terrorist by the Obama's internal security force.
Socialism sucks.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
RyggTard is incapable of answering questions. He spends his days regurgitating Libertarian nonsense propaganda.

You only need a second rate 3rd grade education for that.

"You reason on the level of a 3rd grader - and cannot comprehend some very simple logic." - dir
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
America now starts to dissolve as a viable nation.
Correct. it will absorb the lesser nations around it to become an even bigger america. Because it works so well.
http://en.wikiped...an_Union

-Careful - americans know voodoo
http://www.reuter...20120706
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
Americans have all the liberty they can purchase, and not one dollar's worth more.

"We have a liberty problem." - RyggTard

"Cuba in now understanding how their socialism limits their resources." - RyggTard

Sorry RyggTard. The American Trade embargo against Cuba has been a complete and utter failure. Although IT has reduced the welfare of the Cuban People.

"Imagine having to get PERMISSION to plant a garden and sell the produce!" - RyggTard

This does not happen in Cuba, but is not permitted in most parts of the U.S.

"It's generally illegal to raise chickens in your backyard or home in Philadelphia, as current Philadelphia city codes only allow chickens on parcels of three acres or larger." - http://www.quora....adelphia

And we have from this Conservative Blog....

cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
"Congress is about to make it illegal to grow your own food, or for "any farm" not to purchase and use government mandated chemicals, additives, and pesticides on all food consumed in the United States. Violations are subject to a fine of up to $1,000,000/day." - http://fdrallover...ood.html

Filthy Conservatives.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
the future of America

http://sandhill.t...land.jpg
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
I see. So UbVonTard denies 150 years of CO2 spectroscopy.

"2) Is CO2 considered a greenhouse gas?" - xen

""Considered?" Yes." - UbVonTard

Conservatives are such Gutter Filth.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
"Most consumables are recycled" - UbVonTard

Thanx to 60 years of environmentalist efforts.

Oil, Gas, soil, water from ancient aquifers are not being replenished. Neither is potash, helium, or the 30 percent of the plant and animal life that is projected to go extinct as anthropogenic warming continues.

Poor mentally diseased UbvonTard. So much of reality just goes right over his head.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
the future of America
The past of canada:

"These 50,000 victims have vanished, as have their corpses, "like they never existed," according to one survivor. But they did exist; they were innocent children, and they were killed by beatings and torture, and after being deliberately exposed to tuberculosis and other diseases by paid employees of the churches and government, according to a "Final Solution" master plan devised by the Department of Indian Affairs and the Catholic and Protestant churches."
http://www.akha.o...ide.html
The American Trade embargo against Cuba has been a complete and utter failure.
No it hasnt - it has worked the usual way, in helping to stress the population and keep the birthrate down. This is especially important on this island nation.

This is WHY communism was established there - to destroy the traditional catholic culture with its excessive birthrate. The US was only doing its Part.
xen_uno
2.9 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
Ven - "No you don't. You have a failed Capitalist regime that has collapsed under it's own weight of graft, corruption and ignorance."

This graft and corruption you mentioned is more the domain of the union controlled democrats. Teacher and public employee unions have these guys in their pocket. When serious reform is needed, unions, corporations, and their bought politicians put up road blocks every step of the way. Regulated capitalism (vs unrestricted) is a good thing and made the US a world power. Both parties have diluted and ruined what was once a great republic. Special interests have taken over and we have no representation.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
Regulated capitalism (vs unrestricted) is a good thing and made the US a world power.

No, it is NOT a good thing and it was NOT what made the US a world power.
It actually was the laissez faire policies in the late 1800s that created the wealth emboldening the govt to attempt empire by starting a war with Spain. The 'progressives' then created all sorts of socialist policies FDA, income taxes, Federal Reserve and it has been downhill ever since.
xen_uno
2.9 / 5 (7) Jul 06, 2012
ryg - "No, it is NOT a good thing and it was NOT what made the US a world power"

Look at the definitions:

lais·sez faire (noun):
The theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.

cap·i·tal·ism (noun):
An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Pretty dam similar aren't they? The US became a world power during/after WWII, due to what? Capitalism.
xen_uno
3 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2012
... and it's falling apart due to what? Socialism

so·cial·ism (noun):
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
Pretty dam similar aren't they? The US became a world power during/after WWII, due to what? Capitalism.

No, it was because they had no competition. The rest of the world was destroyed and had to rebuild.
Crapitalism is not capitalism. Crony capitalism, a form of socialism, is where the govt controls competition by making rules and regulations only the most connected companies can afford. Japan practiced crapitalism after WWII but were smart enough to listen to Deming and Taguchi. They also benefited from a US military that protected Japan from China and USSR. And it is crapitalism that led to the 20 years of economic malaise in Japan.
In a real capitalist country, the govt protects everyone's private property equally and regulation is by customer and competitors.
The closest thing to capitalism in the world lately has been the computer and SW industry. But, after MS was attacked by Clinton, the rest will learn they need to pay-off the govt or be sued.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
Socialism is state control of private property.
Bastiat defines socialism well in The Law, and von Mises in Socialism and Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
Here is one example of socialism:
"Atheist Files Discrimination Complaint Over PA Restaurants 10% Sunday Discount for People With Church Bulletins"
http://www.thebla...lletins/
Now the atheist could live and let live and not patronize the restaurant. But no, the state has a bureau, an agency the atheist can whine to and the STATE may use its power to control the business of the restaurant, taking private property.
San Berdo, CA is taking about using eminent domain to seize private housing. Another example of socialism in action. Bastiat calls it legal plunder.
xen_uno
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2012
WWII was such a big undertaking that I hazard to bet that ALL of industry was involved in the war effort in one way or another ... so cronyism (which defo exists today) wasn't a factor then. No pure social and economic models are practiced in real life. So you will always find elements of one or more economic (or social) philosophies mixed in with the base model. Capitalism unfettered see's a market and exploits it rapidly (ie WWII) ... something that socialism and the other philosophies cannot. I'm not downplaying the role of the government then as it kickstarted an ailing economy still mired in the depression.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2012
I am not avoiding any question - you asked a question - I answered that question - and you are too stupid to understand some very simple reasoning. You did not qualify - related to global warming. The point being debated is the influence of science on our process. I argue we should listen to the scientists. You feel that scientists do not do anything to benefit the environment. I proved that you are wrong. You reason on the level of a 3rd grader - and cannot comprehend some very simple logic. It is of course no consequence to me that you are too stupid to know that you are stupid - sure wish you would go and bother other people on a creationist web site though...
Another non-answer. The subject at hand is AGW. It's always been AGW, in spite of your attempt to surreptitiously change it. Why are you still avoiding the question?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
ALL of industry was involved in the war effort in one way or another ..

No, it was called socialism. FDR nationalized all industry for the war effort.
the government then as it kickstarted an ailing economy still mired in the depression.

FDRs govt perpetuated the Depression.
After WWI, a more severe recession occurred but the Coolidge govt cut spending and taxes and the economy boomed.
It was Federal Reserve policies that started the Depression and the socialist policies of Hoover and FDR that perpetuated the Depression.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
"In A Monetary History of the United States, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman along with coauthor Anna J. Schwartz lay the mega-catastrophe of the Great Depression squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve."
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. Youre right, we did it. Were very sorry. But thanks to you, we wont do it again." http://www.wnd.co...3/59405/
Bernanke lied.
xen_uno
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2012
ryg - "No, it was called socialism. FDR nationalized all industry for the war effort."

It wasn't that extreme .. owners were still allowed to make a profit. So it wasn't socialism nor I guess capitalism either .. not in a pure sense. It was a blend. BTW the top tax rate during the war was 94% of gross income ... incredible.

http://www.rithol...average/
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
owners were still allowed to make a profit.

How kind of the govt to 'allow' them to make a profit!
They were forced to make that the govt demanded.
Socialism.

ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
"Greatly admiring Benito Mussolini's fascist system in Italy, Roosevelt proceeded to implement the same type of economic system in the U.S. For example, his National Recovery Act gave him virtually unlimited dictatorial powers over American business and industry. And any American citizen who did not do his "patriotic" duty by supporting the NRA and its "Blue Eagle" soon found himself at the receiving end of FDR's vengeance and retaliation. "
http://www.fff.or...891a.asp
xen_uno
4 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2012
They weren't forced to make jack. There was still money to be made. Employee's worked for a paycheck but weren't allowed to strike. No one would have wanted to anyways. The populace was solidly behind the war unlike any since. Think I've gone off topic enough here.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
"The War Production Board (WPB) was established as a government agency on January 16, 1942 by executive order of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The purpose of the board was to regulate the production of materials and fuel during World War II in the United States. The WPB converted and expanded peacetime industries to meet war needs, allocated scarce materials vital to war production, established priorities in the distribution of materials and services, and prohibited nonessential production."
wiki

"The national WPB's primary task was converting civilian industry to war production."
http://digital.li...021.html
xen_uno
3 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2012
Interesting link on the WPB
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
Uba - pay attention - "The subject at hand is AGW" Wrong... The subject at hand is the question that you asked "what have scientists done to protect the environment?" Not "what have scientists done regarding AGW?" Do you see the difference? Of course the clean air act (or other examples such as studying insect and plant changes brought about by the warming climate) could be looked at as related to AGW - but that is not the point - the point is that you cannot follow reasoning that a third grader would be able to keep up with. Please join a creationist web site and talk to the nice people over there - they are on your level.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2012
Just look at that 11 year cycle...

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif

"What a coincidence, high temperature records are set ~11 years." - RyggTard

Oh wait... There isn't one.

RyggTard is caught lying yet again.

What is it with Libertarians and Conservatives that causes them to lie with virtually every breath?

xen_uno
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2012
ven - "What is it with Libertarians and Conservatives that causes them to lie with virtually every breath?"

Inspiration by the masters perhaps ... liberal democrats.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
How Libertarian/Randites like RyggTard see themselves...

https://docs.goog...GRFZ6WFE

How other's see them...

https://docs.goog...TY0dpV1U

"Atheist Files Discrimination Complaint Over PA Restaurants 10% Sunday Discount for People With Church Bulletins" - RyggTard

It is the business of the state to regulate commerce for the benefit of society.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
owners were still allowed to make a profit.

How kind of the govt to 'allow' them to make a profit!
They were forced to make that the govt demanded.
Socialism.
Ryggy thinks that maintaining free markets is more important than the prospect of losing a world war because industrialists might not participate because they see no profit in it.
Still plenty of room for Prescott Bush and his banister cronies to send $millions overseas to fund Nazi rearmament.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
ALL of industry was involved in the war effort in one way or another ... so cronyism (which defo exists today) wasn't a factor then.
Still plenty of room for Prescott Bush and his bankster cronies to send $millions overseas to fund Nazi rearmament Cronyism works BEST during wartime with lots of money and not much concern for oversight. Easy to fix prices, corrupt officials, and restrict competition because attention is focussed on the enemy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2012
Ryggy thinks that maintaining free markets is more important than the prospect of losing a world war

Had free markets been followed, there would have been no war.
Free markets were working out quiet well until the US decided to become an empire by attacking Spain and then injecting themselves into the war to end all wars.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
Had free markets been followed, there would have been no war.
Free markets were working out quiet well until the US decided to become an empire by attacking Spain and then injecting themselves into the war to end all wars.
No, quite obviously the eurasian wars were inevitable BECAUSE the religions there, which had survived solely because they were better at outgrowing and overrunning their opponents, were still at work.

You attribute one war to the actions of one minor player in one minor country. Is that realistic? No.

Religionism had been causing wars throughout eurasia for millenia. New technologies only caused faster runups to the point where in EVERY case, war and revolution were unavoidable. Inevitable. Each conflict was more severe, more widespread, more prolonged, and more destructive because the religions which drove them had not changed their modus operandi since their inception.

The world wars were fought to END this oppression. Enduring peace has been the Result.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2012
The subject at hand is AGW - Uba
Wrong... The subject at hand is the question that you asked "what have scientists done to protect the environment?" Not "what have scientists done regarding AGW?"
I asked the question in the context of a conversation regarding AGW. You took it out of context.

Charitably, perhaps you misunderstood my intent. So, given credit for answering the "first" version of the question (although not completely), now answer the "second" (and intended) version, please.

Do you see the difference? Of course the clean air act (or other examples such as studying insect and plant changes brought about by the warming climate) could be looked at as related to AGW - but that is not the point - the point is that you cannot follow reasoning that a third grader would be able to keep up with. Please join a creationist web site and talk to the nice people over there - they are on your level.
Avoiding the questions only weakens your argument.

djr
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2012
"first" version of the question (although not completely), now answer the "second" (and intended) version, please." There were never two versions of your question - I answered the question that you asked - "what have scientists done for the environment?" If you would like to pose a different question - I would be happy to take a stab at an answer for you. I do need to be blunt - you are very dull witted - and have difficulty with reasoning that a 3rd grader would handle. Again - I answered the question that you asked - accusing me of avoiding a question - in my view makes you look stupid. Go ahead and pose a different question - and I will take a stab at an answer for you.
djr
3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
ubavon - let me put this question in a little context as I see it. Physorg is science web site - that reports well on scientific research. Folks like yourself and Parker etc. are constantly cluttering the research around issues like climate, and the environment - with anti science. You call scientists names - such as liars, and socialists etc. - accusing them of manipulating science for nefarious reasons such as the control of grant funding, and other political reasons. These attacks bother me - and I try to spend a little time throwing my hat in with others in providing a counter debate. This is important to me - as I believe we have the potential to live intelligently on this planet - and that science will be the main tool that helps us escape our lower nature - one that is filled with conflict, violence, and ignorance. So - when you disparage scientists - I respond. It is of course easier to clean up a polluted river - than to lower the ocean level (cont).
djr
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2012
and as we have not yet begun any geoengineering - I cannot point you to any examples of scientific interventions that have mitigated the effects of climate change. We may in time need to explore these. The wider point is the question of 'do we look to science to help us understand - and manage our universe, or do we disparage science? I see that you like to disparage science - and so I attempt some small level of counter debate. I favor listening to the scientists - it seems you favor attacking them, and accusing them of high levels of unethical behavior. I know several research scientists - they are highly ethical. Does that help explain the context as I see it?
xen_uno
2.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
Your wasting your time dir. That tuba is like "show me the evidence" and you do with knowledge and links of your own and/or point to other sources. Then the circular recursive arguments begin ... another "show me the evidence" he says ... well I just did ya dingbat.

Parker's OK .. at least his responses aren't boiler plate and it may be possible to get thru to him.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
it seems you favor attacking them

Especially when they advocate socialism that has been demonstrated to fail for decades.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
"Anomalous results of the 2011 NSERC Discovery Grants competition in mathematics have provoked a loss of confidence in the NSERC peer review system. To avoid a substantial loss of Canadas scientific talent, which has been enhanced through the Canada Research Chairs program and other spectacular hiring over the past ten years, scientific policymakers need to quickly fix the broken peer review system."
http://blog.math....ematics/
Yes, let's trust the 'experts'.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
"Socialism has never and nowhere been at
first a working-class movement. It is by no means an obvious remedy for the obvious
evil which the interests of that class will necessarily demand. It is a construction of
theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long
time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals
before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their program."
"The class also includes many professional men and
technicians, such as scientists and doctors, who through their habitual intercourse with
the printed word become carriers of new ideas outside their own fields and who,
because of their expert knowledge of their own subjects, are listened with respect on
most others."
The Intellectuals and Socialism
By F.A. Hayek
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
No he didn't.

"No, it was called socialism. FDR nationalized all industry for the war effort." - RyggTard

No he didn't.

"Greatly admiring Benito Mussolini's fascist system in Italy, Roosevelt proceeded to implement the same type of economic system in the U.S." - RyggTard

Lunacy.

"And any American citizen who did not do his "patriotic" duty by supporting the NRA and its "Blue Eagle" soon found himself at the receiving end of FDR's vengeance and retaliation." - RyggTard

RyggTard drinks the coolaid daily. His brain died years ago.

He uses as a reference a KookTard political site called the Future of Freedom Foundation. A Libertarian QuackTank that among other things advocates the destruction of America through the abolition of medicare, medacade, Social Security, Income tax, restrictions on Gun ownership, Public health standards, food safety standards.

The Future of Freedom Foundation also advocates the abolition of all border control and the free immigration of anyone.
DavidW
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
http://gwd.wikispaces.com/John Christy

Criticisms
John Christy has been accused of oil-company funding [2] and criticized for a fudged study he was forced to retract [4]. He is also seen as adapting to the mainstream view and leaving skepticism behind [2, 3, 5].

http://www.exxons...p?id=903
While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
This of course is the same Hayak who's economic policies - as carried out by Alan Greenspan, caused the current American depression.

"Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement." - Hayak

Libertarian Economics has been a disaster whereever it has been tried, and in any measure in which it has been implemented.

Consider the rising costs of Electricity in the U.S. and the reduction in quality. these are a direct result of Libertarian efforts to privatize the system.

Whenever Electric utilities have been privatized, the results have been a reduction in supply quality and dramatic increases in costs as private investors demand returns on their investment.

Returns that must be funded by higher electricity prices.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
"'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate change"
http://www.dailym...nge.html

"But what's not run-of -the-sty is a 1998 letter, signed by Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay (and a few other bigwigs), asking President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue. Apparently they were standing in Enron's way."
"Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists Enron was trying to shut up. "
"One of Enron's major consultants in that study was NASA scientists James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess "
http://www.cato.o...-warming
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
RyggTard's intent is to show that the NSERC is corrupt or underproducive.

So he posts a misleading paragraph from a study of the government grant program without context for his ideological purpose.

"Anomalous results of the 2011 NSERC Discovery Grants competition in mathematics" - RyggTard

Now remember - I have never met a Libertarian who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar. Lets see if RyggTard passes the test by looking at the conclusion of the summary report he is writing about.

Cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
In Summary

Based on the evidence before it, the Committee has concluded that:

(a) the relatively high success rate of DGP applications is not incompatible with, and in fact encourages, a high degree of research excellence across a broad range of fields;

(b) the best researchers are able to use support of a Discovery Grant as a base to lever an internationally competitive level of funding from other sources;

Cont...
djr
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2012
"Yes, let's trust the 'experts'." I have no interest in discussing socialism with you Rygg - in fact I think we would agree on that issue - socialism is a failed, inefficient system - just not an issue for discussion on a science web site. However - here is the flaw in your attack on 'experts'. I have no problem with healthy skepticism - that for me is a keystone of science. However - when I go to the doctor with a problem - I do trust the process of science - and therefore value the doctors diagnosis and prescription. Are there crooked doctors out to screw people over and make a buck? Sure - but that does not invalidate the process of science. Now - I of course don't care if you don't trust the process of science - and want to put your faith in homeopathy, or your local witch doctor. What I object to is the constant attack of science - on a science focused web site. I don't hassle the creationists on their web sites - enuf said?
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2012
Science was supposed to be open.

"Since NASA's James Hansen finally released computer codes related to how climate data are collected and adjusted, anthropogenic global warming skeptics around the world have been waiting to see what a scientific examination of this information would produce.

Read more: http://newsbuster...zygTHCv7
"The first step was taken in the 1995 Second Assessment Report, when the above Figure 7c was replaced with a 1993 reconstruction from R.S. Bradley and Phil Jones himself that used 1400 AD as its base -- effectively wiping the MWP off the radar screen"
http://www.americ...hid.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
(c) the broad base of DGP grants sustains an important level of research capability and student training across the NSE disciplines and throughout Canada and thus contributes significantly to meeting the nations needs for research results and highly-qualified people;

And

Cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2012
(d) the DGP is therefore an exceptionally productive investment and thus deserves additional funding to ensure that the value of its grants keeps pace with the growing opportunity.

Gosh. The summary of the report contradicts everything that RyggTard wanted his audience to think it said.

I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2012
So Rygg - who made Hansen the be all and end all of the climate change debate? Are there not multiple lines of data? Do these multiple lines of data not agree fairly closely in terms of their measurements of global temperatures? So - instead of harping on your attack of one individual - can you provide any alternative data that would support the implication that 'scientists' are cooking the books?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2012
"Socialism has never and nowhere been at
first a working-class movement. It is by no means an obvious remedy ...construction of
theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought
Perhaps... But it was born of conditions created by an industrial revolution which 1) created initial prosperity which enabled the workforce to grow faster than ever and 2) put a large percentage of them out of work.

Labor in a free market is just another commodity. When labor exceeds demand, competitors MUST pay workers less in order to remain competitive. Automation crashed a surplus labor market. Workers were understandably pissed.

Capitalism had created this miasma but was not compelled to offer constructive solutions beyond hiring Pinkerton guards. What would we expect?

Assad currently calls Syrian workers terrorists. One missed meal and a revolution in Europe ensued. The US had to invent organized crime to keep communists out of the unions. One of it's many valuable Uses.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2012
What I object to is the constant attack of science - on a science focused web site.

First, the process of science demands debate. This site routinely promotes the AGW party line and 'consensus' and most here attack those who challenge the AGW faith.
Now if the AGWites aim was scientific why do they support socialist policies to 'fix' it?
I am sure most MDs in the US are quite opposed to socialized health care and how it limits their ability to practice. So socialism is quite pertinent to the discussion.
Especially since Popper was motivated by the failure of socialism to postulate falsification.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
The MWP was largely regional and hence has a small global footprint.

"effectively wiping the MWP off the radar screen" - RyggTard

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature climate reconstruction has verified Hansen's methods as has the NOAA climate Analysis, the JAXA climate analysis and the UHA climate analysis.

Meanwhile Climate deniers, who have had access to the base data for at least two decades, have don't seem capable of producing their own analysis.

They thought they had done so with the Berkeley analysis - funded in part by the filthy Koch brothers. But when the results of that study confirmed all of the others, they started sending death threats to the Berkeley researchers, and reneged on their promise to support the results no matter what.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
Since you never answer questions, you have proven yourself incapable of debate.

"First, the process of science demands debate." - RyggTard

Since you do not understand science, you are incapable of scientific debate.

You are a flat earther on a science site. A creationist on an Palaeontology site. A Satinist on a Christian site. Etc.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
There was no such letter.

Your source - The Libertarian QuackTank - CATO Institute - exists for the purpose of lying to the American people.

As do you. You are one of their "useful idiots".

"But what's not run-of -the-sty is a 1998 letter, signed by Enron's then-CEO Ken Lay (and a few other bigwigs), asking President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue." - Ryggtard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
Poor RyggTard. He will live to his last day opposing reality with his every breath. And as the world around him turns more and more socialist with every day, he will die a bitter, broken, and perpetually delusional man.

As he should.

RyggTard = Pure Delusional Ignorance and Pure Delusional Poison.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
What does the Russian and UK summer look like?

"Floods and landslides killed at least 103 people in southern Russia after two months' average rainfall fell in a few hours, forcing some to climb on to roofs and into trees to save themselves, police said on Saturday."
http://www.reuter...20120707

"August is set to be a washout following a miserable July and the wettest June since records began meaning summer is effectively over."
http://www.expres...eptember
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2012
Modern science:

"The political pressure upon the IPCC was becoming all too apparent. It was coming from abovefrom the United Nations. It was coming from the science lobby, and it was coming from a global environmental lobby engorged with public funding (see discussion in a following post). They were all looking for a conclusive detection of warming, and the attribution of this warming to carbon emissions. "
http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/madrid-1995-was-this-the-tipping-point-in-the-corruption-of-climate-science/

"I knew well the long history of apocalyptic alarmism in our culture, and if this history taught one lesson it was to expect such movements in every age. But this movement had developed in a major way within the institutions of science."
http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/about/
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
Rygg - "This site routinely promotes the AGW party line"

I would see there are two possible scenarios here. 1. You are correct - and Physorg is deliberately bias - and misconstruing science. If you believe that - why don't you go find a site that is objective and fair - and leave this bias site to its delusion. You do realize that there are many denier sites - that I think misrepresent reality - and I don't read them - I think that is respectful. 2. Reality is that the science that is being reported on this site is fair, and accurately depicts the situation regarding climate change - in which case your are being not only rude - but conspiring to derail our understanding of a potentially very serious situation - that needs our attention. On the issue of scientists advocating socialism - I would ask you a question - do you disapprove of the clean air act - that has done a great deal to improve the quality of our air, and provided health benefits to folks in the U.S.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2012
So Rygg - who made Hansen the be all and end all of the climate change debate? Are there not multiple lines of data? Do these multiple lines of data not agree fairly closely in terms of their measurements of global temperatures? So - instead of harping on your attack of one individual - can you provide any alternative data that would support the implication that 'scientists' are cooking the books?

When one scientist is caught falsify results in a peer review system where few, if any, ever redo the experiment or re-run the data, how can honest scientists be trusted using the same process?
Seems like a very serious issue the science needs to address.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2012
Since no climate scientist has been caught doing this, I fail to see how your comment applies to reality.

"When one scientist is caught falsify results in a peer review system where few, if any, ever redo the experiment or re-run the data" - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
In earlier times, people like RyggTard imagined all manner of unreal things, like Minotaurs, Mermaids, Harpies, Sirens, Centaurs, and Hydra.

Science was developed to free men from RyggTard like self-delusions of pure fantasy.


"Seems like a very serious issue the science needs to address. " - Ryggtard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2012
92 year old men like James Lovelock say all kinds of kookie things, and LoveLock has been saying kookie things for at least a decade.

The Denial-o-sphere seems to think that they have some coup in progress. But what they really have is another retired old scientist with Alzheimers. Denialists employ Alzheimers whenever it furthers their murderous cause.

"'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate change" - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2012
The examples of extreme weather you have posted from Russia are examples of the kinds of extreme weather we expect to see as the climate continues to warm.

"What does the Russian and UK summer look like?" - RyggTard

You are aware enough of the real world around you to realize that aren't you?
gregor1
2 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2012
Why this article is about weather not climatehttp://wattsupwit...warming/
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2012
Didn't your mommy ever tell you RyggTard that mindless quotes from mindless political blogs do not constitute science.

"The political pressure upon the IPCC was becoming all too apparent." - RyggTard quoting from a mindless internet Blog.

Sadly, you really are so stupid that you believe they are.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2012
GregorTard links to the following article on the Denialist Circle Jerk blog WUWT..

"The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming" - Denialist Blog.

The odd thing is, that not a single climate scientists or report that I have read blames America's searing heat wave on global warming.

All have been very careful to point out that no individual event can easily be tied to warming due to the statistical nature of attribution.

The very title of the article GregorTard is responding to says it all.

"This US summer is 'what global warming looks like': scientists" - Title

Poor GregorTard. He doesn't live in the reality based community. He lives in a Tard fantasy land of his own.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
From this article on Physorg - "Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records"

From gregor's link "Regarding the thousands of broken records, there are not that many high-quality weather observing stations that (1) operated since the record warm years in the 1930s"

Actual temperature data - http://data.giss....ig.B.gif

Wonder why Mr. Watts does not link to the actual data???? Very strange!!!!
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
Why is the article about weather? It's man-made global warming just as Al Gore predicted. Need proof? Watt's is another petrol terrorist.

http://www.wunder...climate/

ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2012
The current heat wave -- which is spurring comparisons to the catastrophic heat of 1936 -- is "out of whack,"

Compared to what, 1936?
What happened in 1936 is very similar to what is happening now at the same time of year, for similar duration and intensity.
Why didn't the article provide any comparisons to what happened in 1936?
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2012
This story from 1930 sounds familiar:

http://www.washin...Heat.pdf

The article also states 1918 had a similar heat wave.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2012
djr, you assert you are defending attacks on science.
What is science?
"In essence, one may find that the key to the scientific method is the question of which is better; inductive or deductive reasoning. It may sound like a simple question at first, but once one really begins to look at the history of science, it becomes anything but.

Read more at Suite101: Induction vs. Deduction in Science: The Techniques Involved in Creating a Good Scientific Theory | Suite101.com http://suite101.c...02YubfBh
"

Even science is still debating the method.

Billy Koen has an interesting discussion of the method.

http://www.me.ute...OUP.html
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
There were never two versions of your question
This is a lie.

I answered the question that you asked
This is a lie.

If you would like to pose a different question - I would be happy to take a stab at an answer for you.
This is a lie, as up to now you've refused to provide a proper answer (and I can't help but notice you haven't done so here).

Again - I answered the question that you asked
Another lie.

Go ahead and pose a different question - and I will take a stab at an answer for you.
Answer the questions I've already posed.

Why is this so hard for you?

Why are AGW alarmists, liars?

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
Uba - pay attention - "The subject at hand is AGW" Wrong...
That's a lie.

Here's the original context:

When you call AGW a scam... - djr


Well, what else do you call a self-perpetuating act of disinformation for personal gain? Seriously, what have the scientists done to "protect" the environment? How many of them use sail to arrive at their various destinations of study and conference? Any? None? - uba


Obviously, my questions were clearly in the context of AGW, as my questions were a directly response to an AGW comment you wrote.

And, I certainly didn't use "scientist" as a general term, but rather preceded it with the modifier "the." Therefore (and obviously) the question was about THE scientists in question whom I've accused of perpetuating a scam.

And while we're at it, why are you still avoiding this question:

Seriously, if AGW is such a problem, why are mortality and disease rates down? What, really, is the "problem" you're trying to fix?

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
@djr:

Physorg is science web site - that reports well on scientific research. Folks like yourself ...are constantly cluttering the research around issues like climate, and the environment - with anti science.
That's a lie. I use only well respected sources and references.

You call scientists names - such as liars,
AGW scientists often are liars.

and and socialists etc.
I don't recall making such an accusation.

accusing them of manipulating science for nefarious reasons such as the control of grant funding, and other political reasons.
I don't recall making such an accusation.

These attacks bother me
They should.

and I try to spend a little time throwing my hat in with others in providing a counter debate.
Then debate the science and quit with these hackneyed personal attacks.

Continued...
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
This is important to me ...when you disparage scientists - I respond.
Not so far, except to avoid and obfuscate.

It is of course easier to clean up a polluted river - than to lower the ocean level (cont).
Why would you want to? Is the ocean doing anything it hasn't been doing all along?

I cannot point you to any examples of scientific interventions that have mitigated the effects of climate change.
This is a misdirection. I didn't ask for "examples of scientific interventions that have mitigated the effects of climate change."

The wider point is the question of 'do we look to science to help us understand - and manage our universe, or do we disparage science?
So now science has the power to "manage our universe?"

If the science is sound, it stands on its own. If it's not, it deserves to be disparaged.

Continued...
djr
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2012
Damn you are stubborn - just saying this is a lie - does not make it so. If there were two versions of your question - you could just point me to them. Being that you prove incapable of expressing yourself clearly - I will try putting words in your mouth and reframing the question. "What have scientists done to protect the environment with specific regard to global warming?" My answer - scientists have alerted us to the problem of green house gases causing our climate to warm - and potentially causing serious problems for us as a species - such as increased drought, more severe weather events etc. In addition - scientists have developed tools such as solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear energy, electric cars etc. that will allow us to reduce our carbon emissions. A very specific example of ways scientists have helped us protect the environment is the development of genetically modified drought tolerant plants that will help us feed our population.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
This is the nature of science. Science isn't science because scientists say so. Science is based upon formulating and testing hypotheses. If the hypotheses can't stand up to testing, then they need to be discarded. AGW alarmism has not withstood testing, and therefore needs to be discarded.

I see that you like to disparage science
That's not true. I very much enjoy, and have nothing but respect for, good science.

and so I attempt some small level of counter debate.
By avoiding the debate altogether? Why are you writing all of this nonsense which has nothing to do with the debate at hand?

I favor listening to the scientists
Apparently, only those you agree with.

it seems you favor attacking them, and accusing them of high levels of unethical behavior.
Only when they deserve it.

I know several research scientists
Me too.

they are highly ethical.
They're people, not unlike anyone else. Some have more ego, than brains.

Continued...
djr
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2012
This is a misdirection. I didn't ask for "examples of scientific interventions that have mitigated the effects of climate change."
No - you asked "what have scientists done to protect the environment?" That was the question I answered - and if it was not what you were trying to get at - you could easily have said "Wait a second - let me clarify my question for you" - but you were incapable of expressing yourself clearly - so I had to guess at what you were really getting at. Again - if I have not answered the question you were asking - please clarify - please reframe - please use your words to tell me what the question you wanted me to answer was.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
Does that help explain the context as I see it?
Sure. You want to obfuscate the argument with a bunch of nonsense. Why else would you go through the trouble to write all of this, instead of simply addressing my questions?

Damn you are stubborn - just saying this is a lie - does not make it so.
But the fact that it is a lie, makes it so.

If there were two versions of your question - you could just point me to them.
This is a lie. I have both discussed the difference and provided the updated version, numerous times.

Being that you prove incapable of expressing yourself clearly
This is a lie.

I will try putting words in your mouth and reframing the question.
Naturally, as you're again refusing to answer the questions I posed.

"What have scientists done to protect the environment with specific regard to global warming?"
What's with the quotes? Are you trying to imply this is my question? Hardly.

Continued...
djr
3 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2012
What's with the quotes? Are you trying to imply this is my question? Hardly. If it is not - then ask the fucking question again. I am screaming at you - I am saying please rephrase your question - please re-state your question - please clarify your question - are you incapable of a simple request? Please restate your question.....
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
My answer
Straw man. Asking and answering your own question (in my name) to avoid answering my question, is a lie.

No - you asked "what have scientists done to protect the environment?"
This is a lie.

I asked: ...what have the (as in these particular) scientists done to "protect" the environment?

That was the question I answered
Then you answered the wrong question.

and if it was not what you were trying to get at - you could easily have said "Wait a second - let me clarify my question for you"
This is a lie, as I have done so numerous times.

but you were incapable of expressing yourself clearly - so I had to guess at what you were really getting at.
This is a lie.

Again - if I have not answered the question you were asking - please clarify - please reframe - please use your words to tell me what the question you wanted me to answer was.
Are you a chatbot? Chatbots often have difficulty with content. Or is it that you're simply a moron?
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
What's with the quotes? Are you trying to imply this is my question? Hardly.
If it is not - then ask the fucking question again. I am screaming at you - I am saying please rephrase your question - please re-state your question - please clarify your question - are you incapable of a simple request? Please restate your question...
Another lie. I've posed and clarified the questions numerous times. Find them yourself.

Are lies all you have?
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2012
djr: What research has Paul Ehrlich published the saved the world?
He has been and is being proven to wrong every day.

"While Simon was proven correct, Ehrlich went on to win a MacArthur Foundation genius grant based on his career of fantastic apocalyptic predictions that never came true. In 1990, Ehrlich and his wife shamelessly published The Population Explosion, another book predicting that human numbers are on a collision course with massive famines. Simons work has influenced people to challenge the corruptions of such environmentalist doomsayers; nevertheless, the rehashed, dispelled arguments of Ehrlich and his ilk prevail in many American minds. "
http://capitalism...ehrlich/
This 'science' web site promotes Ehrlich even though his is wrong.
Is this the 'science' you defend djr?
djr
3 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2012
"What research has Paul Ehrlich published the saved the world?" I have no idea why you are asking me this question about one individual that I know nothing about. I will accept your analysis that Paul Ehrlich is wrong. Is your premise that because Paul Ehrlich is wrong - all the science surrounding climate change is also wrong? Could you please give me a reference that would show Physorg.com "promoting" Ehrlich. I would be happy to review said reference - and perhaps dig into the work of Ehrlich a little if you want a personal opinion.

Is this the 'science' you defend djr? I defend science - an open process of discovery. I am not competent to evaluate individual scientists work, as I am not a scientist myself. When my friend talks to me about the genetic modification of the bacteria he is researching - I listen with respect. I don't tell him he is wrong - as I don't feel competent do that - but I do respect and defend the process of science. Hope that answers your question.
djr
3 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2012
"Find them yourself." Smile - you accuse me of obfuscation - but refuse a very simple and direct request. For me this sums up the debate - a simple request - and a response - 'find them yourself' Interpretation for me - "I never did ask a direct question - and when you called me on my nonsense - my answer is "I got nothing".
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2012
Could you please give me a reference that would show Physorg.com "promoting" Ehrlich.

Do a search. It is called research, part of the process of science.
I do respect and defend the process of science.

Then you should not be too shy to condemn the AGWites for promoting their faith, here on this site or in 'journals'.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2012
djr: Is this how scientists are supposed to save the world?

"Paul Ehrlich summed it up this way: "You often hear people say scientists should not be advocates. I think that is bull.""
""We are trying to recruit the social sciences and the humanities into an attempt to make academia relevant in the world and help change the course of society," Ehrlich said. "
http://phys.org/n...red.html
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2012
But Rygg - you used the term 'promoting' I have done some reading on Ehrlich - and clearly he has made overblown predictions - that have been proven wrong - and absolutely - he loses credibility. Physorg has published a number of articles on Ehrlich - but I don't see any editorial on their part that I would call 'promoting'. Physorg reports on lots of areas - mostly cut and paste stuff - they don't editorialize. I enjoy Physorg - becuz they do the leg work for me - and it is very efficient for me - i don't have to read all the journals myself. Physorg publishes articles on nuclear energy for example - but I do not think they 'promote' nuclear energy - just draw my attention to research - or articles on the subject. If you want a personal opinion on Ehrlich - it looks to me like his poor track record would indicate he should apologize - and then STFU
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2012
Physorg has published a number of articles on Ehrlich - but I don't see any editorial on their part that I would call 'promoting'

If Ehrlich is a scientific failure and fraud, why does this site keep putting out stories about him?
they don't editorialize.

This site has a choice about what the put on their site.
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2012
This site has a choice about what the put on their site.

Agreed totally - they also publish articles about Andrea Rossi, Lovelock, and others - people I consider nut jobs - I don't read it as Physorg 'promoting' their positions - just putting articles out there for us to read - and make what we want of the articles.

one thought I find myself having a great deal is 'if you so object to Physorg.com - why not move on - and find a site you are comfortable with?' - I love Physorg - and as I have said - it pains me to see all the attacks on science - on a science web site.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2012
This site has a choice about what the put on their site.

Agreed totally - they also publish articles about Andrea Rossi, Lovelock, and others - people I consider nut jobs - I don't read it as Physorg 'promoting' their positions - just putting articles out there for us to read - and make what we want of the articles.

one thought I find myself having a great deal is 'if you so object to Physorg.com - why not move on - and find a site you are comfortable with?' - I love Physorg - and as I have said - it pains me to see all the attacks on science - on a science web site.

Science is supposed to be about debate. Don't like it?
Follow the process: state your hypotheses and defend them.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2012
"Find them yourself." Smile - you accuse me of obfuscation - but refuse a very simple and direct request. For me this sums up the debate - a simple request - and a response - 'find them yourself' Interpretation for me - "I never did ask a direct question - and when you called me on my nonsense - my answer is "I got nothing".
This just serves to prove you're full of crap. I reposted all of the questions within the past 6 hours.

Try again, chatbot scum.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2012
Translation: RyggTard once again can't support his claims with any evidence.

"Could you please give me a reference that would show Physorg.com "promoting" Ehrlich." - Whomever

"Do a search. It is called research, part of the process of science." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2012
Now RyggTard confuses science and rhetoric.

"Science is supposed to be about debate" - RyggTard

What an idiot. He doesn't even have a grade school level of comprehension as to what science is, and he has the gall to lecture people on the subject.

Filth.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2012
Probably because your assertion that he is a failure and a fraud, is a false one.

You do live in a la-la-land of Libertarian Lunacy after all.

"If Ehrlich is a scientific failure and fraud, why does this site keep putting out stories about him?" - RyggTard
jimsecor
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2012
Y'know. . .the summer of 1980 was hotter. In KS it was 110 F for weeks and weeks and people were dying in the streets. The dept stores opened up to let people without AC and the homeless sleep in the coolness. The rest of the 80s was also very hot. I remember nights in my non-AC'd apt of 90 F. I don't remember seeing reports of temps during the Dust Bowl years, a truly man-made fiasco.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2012
Yes. 1980 had a spectacular heat wave. High temperatures in Kansas stayed above 100'C for around a week. The highest temperature recorded was 108'F.

"the summer of 1980 was hotter." - jimsecor

Last week in Kansas the highest temperature reached was 118'F.

timothy_walker_7399
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2012
As a species, it's time we get our comeuppance. We are especially deserving considering we are a 'sentient' species. You exceed your parameters, there are consequences.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2012
As a species, it's time we get our comeuppance. We are especially deserving considering we are a 'sentient' species. You exceed your parameters, there are consequences.
Are you volunteering?

AGW alarmists hate humanity.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2012
As a species, it's time we get our comeuppance. We are especially deserving considering we are a 'sentient' species. You exceed your parameters, there are consequences.

Why don't the Ehrlich disciples have the courage of their convictions and commit suicide?
Or, if they are sooo selfish come over the the 'dark side' and become a free market capitalist. Maybe they will discover how wealth crates prosperity which EXPAND the parameters they fretted about. But no, socialists just can't shake their affliction.
NotParker
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 09, 2012
This is what global warming looks like:

"At least 14 people have died in Chile due to cold over the past few days. "

http://notrickszo...0-years/
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2012
Try again, chatbot scum. - you are so right - I am a chat bot scum. I have just embarrassed myself in front of a science forum - by trying to have a reasoned conversation with someone incapable of reason. I am worse than a chat bot scum - I am an idiot of the highest order - I will slink off into a cave somewhere - and try to learn my lesson. It is hard to bite my tongue - but from a perspective of reason - I fear it is the only course.
djr
3 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2012
"Try again, chatbot scum." So true - I am in fact worse than a chat bot scum - I am an idiot of the highest order. I tried to have a reasoned conversation - with someone incapable of reason. I have humiliated myself in front of a science forum. I will slink off and lick my wounds. From hence forth I will try to bite my tongue - it will be difficult - but from a reasoned perspective - the best choice.
xen_uno
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2012
tuba - "Are you volunteering? - AGW alarmists hate humanity."

... and there is that typical retarded response whenever an introspective look at mankind by one of it's own members is made. Say it tuba ... you think man is some divine invention rather than what he truly is ... just another animal with a unique skill set but subject to the same naturals laws as the other creatures.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2012



You call scientists names - such as liars,
AGW scientists often are liars.

accusing them of manipulating science for nefarious reasons such as the control of grant funding, and other political reasons.
I don't recall making such an accusation.



The above is classic tubavonparkertard, I removed the line about socialism that separated these 2 remarks....it contradicts itself in the same post.....yet again.
And yes DJR, debate with "it" is a waste of time...but you can sit back and wait for little gems like the one above, secure in the knowledge that one will show up. When your position in a science debate isn't supported by science...ya still have to say something, right?

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2012
subject to the same naturals laws as the other creatures.

Trouble is the 'progressives'/'liberals'/socialists don't believe in such natural laws for humans.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2012
subject to the same naturals laws as the other creatures.

Trouble is the 'progressives'/'liberals'/socialists don't believe in such natural laws for humans.
They believe humans are outside such laws.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2012
tuba - Are you volunteering? - AGW alarmists hate humanity.
... and there is that typical retarded response whenever an introspective look at mankind by one of it's own members is made. Say it tuba ... you think man is some divine invention rather than what he truly is ... just another animal with a unique skill set but subject to the same naturals laws as the other creatures.
You apparently don't realize you're admitting that man is indeed unique. An "animal with a unique skill set."

The question then becomes: How do we define and quantify this unique skill set. Just how special is man?

Anyway, AGW alarmists' population solutions are nothing more than modern day versions of "ethnic cleansing." They feel that anyone not of their mindset should be killed or otherwise eliminated. This is so wrong on such a fundamental level, I can't even convey my full disgust.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2012
You call scientists names - such as liars,
AGW scientists often are liars.
accusing them of manipulating science for nefarious reasons such as the control of grant funding, and other political reasons.
I don't recall making such an accusation.
The above is classic uba, I removed the line about socialism that separated these 2 remarks....it contradicts itself in the same post.....yet again.
It's not a contradiction. The key phrase is "nefarious reasons." I've not accused AGW scientists of doing anything for nefarious reasons. In fact, quite the opposite. I've suggested it's a systemic problem (not a problem of personal intentions).

When your position in a science debate isn't supported by science...ya still have to say something, right?
Like you've done here? Where's YOUR science?

rocha
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2012
as Billy explained I didnt know that a stay at home mom able to get paid $7613 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this webpage NuttyRich.com
xen_uno
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2012
tuba - "You apparently don't realize you're admitting that man is indeed unique. An "animal with a unique skill set" "

O did I contradict myself somewhere? Where? I'll remember that when other animals show off their superior skill sets, you know like horses running, cats jumping, birds flying, dolphins swimming, etc. True those are physical attributes, but humans only claim to fame is intelligence (well with some of us anyways). We don't know exactly how smart other social animals are, ie dolphins. They never invented a computer or other mechanical devices because they have no need, and possess no greed.

Just remember that human society didn't happen overnight. Took thousands of years for you (and I) to have the luxury to sit here and ponder the deeper questions of life, rather than out there scratching and trying to survive like every other animal.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 09, 2012
hey feel that anyone not of their mindset should be killed or otherwise eliminated.

This is the 'liberal' mindset. It is not enough for a 'liberal' to not be a vegetarian, he must force everyone to be a vegan. If a 'liberal' is atheist, he must attack religion so everyone is an atheist. The list goes on. Recall how the 'liberal' CSPI asserted coconut oil was 'bad' and force movie theater to stop putting on popcorn. BTW, coconut oil is good for you.
'Liberals' are most intolerant. But that must be a side effect of their socialist tendencies to follow the herd and not be an individual. They must feel very uncomfortable being an individual.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2012
humans only claim to fame is intelligence

Which enabled humans to work together to be at the top of the food chain and to then alter their environment to increase production of food, increasing the size of the gene pool increasing the total intelligence opportunities. (Except for abortions.)

possess no greed.

Yes, they do. Ever hear of territories? Animals mark their territories and chase out others. Males chase rivals out. Tom cats murder kittens not their own. Birds steal nests of other birds and destroy eggs. Females choose the better mates.
Just remember that human society didn't happen overnight.

So why do you disrespect our ancestors by attacking their accomplishments that enable you to live so easily?
You are quite free to go back to scratching in dirt for food or you can use the tools created by human intelligence, like money, and inherent rights to life, liberty and property that make your life so easy.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2012
'Tolerant' 'liberals':
"Jane Pitt, mother of actor Brad Pitt, has been scared into silence by the hate-filled, vulgar and even violent reaction to her public assertion that Barack Obama is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage."
http://www.wnd.co...silence/
xen_uno
3 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2012
ryg - possess no greed was pointed at dolphins ... read the post again.

"So why do you disrespect our ancestors by attacking their accomplishments that enable you to live so easily?"

... and you see proof of this attack where? If you can't understand the context then don't read it at all. Thump your bible somewhere else.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2012
O did I contradict myself somewhere?
A little.

Where?
Where you likened humans to animals and then stated they're unique.

I'll remember that when other animals show off their superior skill sets,
Notice you didn't use the word, "unique?"

humans only claim to fame is intelligence.
This isn't the only unique skill we have. Another is our stamina. A human hunter in good condition can run a deer down to exhaustion. Bushmen do it all the time.

http://en.wikiped..._hunting

We don't know exactly how smart other social animals are,
We have a pretty good idea.

http://en.wikiped...ognition

(Dolphins) have no need, and possess no greed.

Really?

"Dolphins Become Vicious Murderers"

http://www.enviro...rers/731

Just remember that human society didn't happen overnight.
But it happened, because we are indeed superior.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2012
This is the 'liberal' mindset.
Sorry, no.

I'm getting rather tired of these liberal vs. conservative assertions regarding AGW. Although AGW alarmists may tend to be liberal, and vice versa, the demarcation is not nearly so absolute.

For instance, I'm a lifelong democrat and I disagree with the AGW alarmists.

And anyway, your ideal of history is bogus. You think America was better off before social services? Hardly. Maybe you think we should return to orphanages?

http://www.jhu.ed...nge.html

...or sell poor children into indenture (example below of a seven year old being sold into indenture)?

http://www.poorho...Bond.htm

Sure, the poor were somewhat supported by the community, but often under awful, institutionalized conditions:

http://www.poorho...tory.htm

Things aren't so black and white. These are difficult issues requiring careful consideration.

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2012
Levels are actually higher when pertaining to overall atmospheric content than they were last year at this time. Up almost 3 PPM


It's always fun catching these deniers in a lie.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2012
R2 says
If a 'liberal' is atheist, he must attack religion so everyone is an atheist.

That is not true R2, I have plenty of Muslim friends.

xen_uno
3 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2012
I'm sure a bunch of nuns could be coerced into kicking your dumb ass, tuba, under the right circumstances, yet I still wouldn't paint them as violent. Dolphins no different, so quit taking freak occurrences from obscure sites and making that behavior seem normal. The rest of your BS post centers around my unfortunate use of "unique" when idiots again are unable to take it in context. Nothing is unique in the animal world with few exceptions. You can run, but a cheetah will outrun you before your stamina can do you any good, and your intelligence won't save your life, or the bushman's. I can see that with you, your alter ego parker, and ryg (to a degree), I will have to be very succinct in verbiage to avoid any misinterpretations, and even dumb it down a bit.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2012
Intelligence has enabled the natives of Africa to defend themselves, their families and their animals from cheetahs, lions, leopards, etc. The created defensive housing and weapons.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2012
R2 says
If a 'liberal' is atheist, he must attack religion so everyone is an atheist.

That is not true R2, I have plenty of Muslim friends.


Yes, because Muslims and socialists are fellow travelers. Both eagerly support totalitarian govts. Like the temporary alliance between Hitler and Stalin, once the Muslims and 'liberals' destroy Israel and Christianity, the Muslims will turn on the 'liberals' as the Muslims do not tolerate 'liberalism'.
How many 'liberals' are crying out about intolerance of Islam?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2012
I'm getting rather tired of these liberal vs. conservative assertions regarding AGW. Although AGW alarmists may tend to be liberal, and vice versa, the demarcation is not nearly so absolute.

It is quite clear. AGWites demand the use of state power to impose their POV. Just like any 'good' 'liberal' socialist.
They have no conception of using free markets and persuasion to make their case.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2012
You call scientists names - such as liars,
AGW scientists often are liars.
accusing them of manipulating science for nefarious reasons such as the control of grant funding, and other political reasons.
I don't recall making such an accusation.
The above is classic uba, I removed the line about socialism that separated these 2 remarks....it contradicts itself in the same post.....yet again.
It's not a contradiction. The key phrase is "nefarious reasons." I've not accused AGW scientists of doing anything for nefarious reasons. In fact, quite the opposite. I've suggested it's a systemic problem (not a problem of personal intentions).




BLAHAHAHAHA! Oh, nefarious reasons...yes this makes what you said non contradictory....or, no, you still contradicted yourself as anyone can see by reading it. (calling scientists liars is an accusation, of many things). You have no credibility, but watching you try to back peddle is fun.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2012
If a 'liberal' is atheist, he must attack religion so everyone is an atheist.
No this would describe an antireligionist, of which are people like hitchens, Dawkins, and myself. Antireligionism is different from atheism. Whether or not god exists is something for scientists, not superstitionists, to ultimately decide.

And I am definitely not a liberal. By the way Nazis were 'liberal' in that they were against the conservative status quo and they recruited many moslems to their cause as in the ss handschar division.

You may find this link amusing
http://en.wikiped..._Fascism
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2012
And I am definitely not a liberal.

In the sense you attack others for their faith and call for govt action to force others to believe as you do, you are a 'liberal'.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2012
R2 says
If a 'liberal' is atheist, he must attack religion so everyone is an atheist.

That is not true R2, I have plenty of Muslim friends.


Like these?
"According to several reports in the Arabic media, prominent Muslim clerics have begun to call for the demolition of Egypts Great Pyramidsor, in the words of Saudi Sheikh Ali bin Said al-Rabii, those symbols of paganism, which Egypts Salafi party has long planned to cover with wax."
http://frontpagem...yramids/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2012
And I am definitely not a liberal.

In the sense you attack others for their faith and call for govt action to force others to believe as you do, you are a 'liberal'.
Naw that's just being practical. And realistic.

The guy who youse guys want to be president, thinks Jesus walked amongst the ojibways, and thinks it is no big deal that Joseph smith concocted his book of Abraham by simply lying about 'reading' some heiroglyphics, and forging them to suit.

You ok with his 'faith'? You ok with that sort of superstitionist being in charge of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal? Or any superstitionist for that matter?

Of course you are. I am not. I am not ok with people in positions of authority, who ascribe to a list of moral precepts which begins 'Believe in this god and only this god, or you are by definition immoral.'

This truth I believe is self-evident.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2012
"According to several reports in the Arabic media, prominent Muslim clerics have begun to call for the demolition of Egypts Great Pyramidsor, in the words of Saudi Sheikh Ali bin Said al-Rabii, those symbols of paganism, which Egypts Salafi party has long planned to cover with wax."
Of course this would be no different than all the pagan shrines that xians destroyed and built their churches on top of would it? This is SOP for all religions, in keeping with the 'outgrow, overrun and obliterate' philosophy that they all share.

RIGHT?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2012
I just had a thought - perhaps as a pre-caliphatic gesture at pan-sunni-shiia-sufi-sushi solidarity, the brotherhood will let amaddinejad test his first nuke out in the heart of cheops.

Win-win. It would then be an even greater testament to the power of god.

And why bother to fix the Washington obelisk? Sooner or later they will be tearing it down.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2012
BLAHAHAHAHA! Oh, nefarious reasons...yes this makes what you said non contradictory....or, no, you still contradicted yourself as anyone can see by reading it. (calling scientists liars is an accusation, of many things). You have no credibility, but watching you try to back peddle is fun.
So again, where's your science?

"When your position in a science debate isn't supported by science...ya still have to say something, right?" - rubberman

Anyway, once again, there's no contradiction (even without the "nefarious reasons"). I do not recall having accused AGW scientists "of manipulating science for ...the control of grant funding, and other political reasons."

If you can find a reference proving otherwise, I'll gladly admit I was wrong. But I very much doubt you can.

And calling AGW scientists liars, was only meant as an objective observation of behavior, nothing else. If YOU think they're lying for nefarious reasons, or wish to consider their motives, that's on you.

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2012
I'm sure a bunch of nuns could be coerced into kicking your dumb ass, tuba, under the right circumstances, yet I still wouldn't paint them as violent.
If this isn't violence, what is?

Dolphins no different, so quit taking freak occurrences from obscure sites and making that behavior seem normal.
There are lots of references regarding violent behavior from dolphins. You do know they're apex predators, right?

Here's a NewScientist article about it (is that mainstream enough for you?)

http://www.newsci...ses.html

It's no big deal that you didn't know, but that you're unwilling to learn is a problem. So what is it with AGW alarmists that they're afraid of learning anything new?
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2012
Nothing is unique in the animal world with few exceptions.
So writing, wearing shoes, art, and organized sports competitions aren't exceptional behaviors? How about being stunned by nature's beauty, dreaming of being an astronaut, or seeing who can skip a stone the farthest? It seems the list of unique human behaviors is positively endless!

You can run, but a cheetah will outrun you before your stamina can do you any good, and your intelligence won't save your life, or the bushman's.
My intelligentl use of a bullet, penetrating its heart, won't save me? Are you an idiot?

I can see that with you, and ryg (to a degree), I will have to be very succinct in verbiage to avoid any misinterpretations, and even dumb it down a bit.
You mean you can be even dumber?
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2012
It is quite clear. AGWites demand the use of state power to impose their POV. Just like any 'good' 'liberal' socialist.
They have no conception of using free markets and persuasion to make their case.
Well, persuasion hasn't been working for them. Maybe they're getting desperate. LOL.

Anyway, I don't object to your complaints regarding their unreasoned behavior, but I do object to your politicizing the argument.

You can be a Republican and buy into AGW alarmism:

http://www.conser...larmist/

So please keep the debate focused on the science, not politics.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2012
I do object to your politicizing the argument.

AGWites started it.
IPCC is a political organization and all AGWites 'solutions' demand govt actions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2012
So writing, wearing shoes, art, and organized sports competitions aren't exceptional behaviors? How about being stunned by nature's beauty, dreaming of being an astronaut, or seeing who can skip a stone the farthest? It seems the list of unique human behaviors is positively endless!
The origins of these traits and behaviors can ALL be found in the animal kingdom. Science tells us this.

Only religion, art, and philosophy wish to obscure this connection. Humans are different from animals only by degree. This degree of separation is significant, and enables the useful category 'artificial', but we can only fully understand human behavior as wholly animalistic.

This allows the exclusion of such nonsense as the soul, god, metaphysics, consciousness, and other non-existent phenomena created only to obscure this connection.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2012
possess no greed.


Yes, they do. Ever hear of territories? Animals mark their territories and chase out others. Males chase rivals out. Tom cats murder kittens not their own. Birds steal nests of other birds and destroy eggs. Females choose the better mates.

"Greed : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed."

-Greed is an example of our inordinate fears of an uncertain future, causing some to accumulate excessively. This behavior would be detrimental to survival in the wild and would be selected against.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2012
R2 says:
IPCC is a political organization...


Do you mean R2? Like a Democrat Organization??? Or a Liberal Organizaion, or a Republican Organization or Rightwing?

It's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And just how is that political?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2012
""The Nobel prize was for peace not science ... government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change," said Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from the Netherlands. "For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for something they are not. To make sure that it does not happen again, the IPCC should change its name and become part of something else. The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organisation. It provides a review of published scientific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent scientists.""
http://www.guardi...c-reform

IPCC is NOT a political organization?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2012
"At a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, earlier this month, the IPCC decided for the first time to impose strict geographical quotas on the elected officials that make up its bureau. There will also be a push to increase the representation of women among its authors."
http://www.newsci...nce.html
xen_uno
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2012
TY otto ... for help pointing out just how bad tuba's comprehension skills are. Now if we can only teach him what "coerced" means ... the boy needs a dictionary bad. He is the perfect denialist ... only reads and understands to the level required to support his case.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2012
The origins of these traits and behaviors can ALL be found in the animal kingdom. Science tells us this.
Hardly. Show me a natural origin for skipping stones as entertainment. Show me another mammal which wears shoes.

Only religion, art, and philosophy wish to obscure this connection. Humans are different from animals only by degree. This degree of separation is significant, and enables the useful category 'artificial', but we can only fully understand human behavior as wholly animalistic.
What a bunch of hooey. There's nothing animalistic about dreaming to be an astronaut.

This allows the exclusion of such nonsense as the soul, god, metaphysics, consciousness, and other non-existent phenomena created only to obscure this connection.
Consciousness is poorly understood. But we are conscious, as we can consciously say, "I think, therefore I am."

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2012
TY otto ... for help pointing out just how bad tuba's comprehension skills are. Now if we can only teach him what "coerced" means ... the boy needs a dictionary bad. He is the perfect denialist ... only reads and understands to the level required to support his case.
Being "coerced" to violence is still violence. The only change is in regard to responsibility.

Get a clue.
xen_uno
2 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2012
You are pathetic tuba. I said "I'm sure a bunch of nuns could be coerced into kicking your dumb ass, tuba, under the right circumstances, yet I still wouldn't paint them as violent. Dolphins no different, so quit taking freak occurrences from obscure sites and making that behavior seem normal."

It means that nuns kicking your ass is violent, no contention there. Point was that they are not normally violent (they were coerced) and the freak dolphin behavior you linked was an aberration too. Your not smart enough for misdirection, so give it up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2012
@scooby
Hardly. Show me a natural origin for skipping stones as entertainment.
Refinement of motor skills is indeed pleasurable or 'entertaining' for any animal. Throwing is an importsnt skill for many primates and they can all be seen practicing it.
Show me another mammal which wears shoes.
Using materials for protection is common in the animal world. Snails make shells. Elephants cover themselves with mud to protect from flies. Birds build nests.

None of these say Nike on the side but animals do 'trademark' their dens and territories don't they?

Try again godder.
What a bunch of hooey. There's nothing animalistic about dreaming to be an astronaut.
Ever watch a cat dreaming? Their legs start to twitch as they are no doubt exploring potential environs, chasing and being chased, in their minds. Dreaming is also a form of practice .
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2012
Consciousness is poorly understood. But we are conscious, as we can consciously say, "I think, therefore I am."
The term 'consciousness' is coming to be understood as useless in describing behavior. The concept was originally developed by religionists and philos for the purposes of separating us from the animals and attaching us to the metaphysical; ie, god, the unexplainable. Consciousness is therefore a myth like the soul. Yes?

Self-awareness is a more useful term. Many species will recognize themselves in a mirror. Many will exhibit behaviors which indicate abstract thinking, planning, deception. These traits are distinguishable from human traits only by degree.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2012
It means that nuns kicking your ass is violent, no contention there. Point was that they are not normally violent (they were coerced)
So now you'd modify your vision of violence with the word, "normally?" Normally, shouldn't nuns rather die themselves first than perpetrate such an act against another?

And what's the level of coercion to begin with? Did you offer them a piece of candy for doing it?

Sorry, anyone kicking anyone's ass is still an act of violence. The nuns, in this case, commit an act of violence, and therefore are violent ...and certainly have the proven propensity for violence. "Normally" has nothing to do with it.

and the freak dolphin behavior you linked was an aberration too. Your not smart enough for misdirection, so give it up.


"Dolphins are violent predators with a predilection for baby killing and rape."

http://www.slate....ies.html
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2012
Refinement of motor skills is indeed pleasurable or 'entertaining' for any animal. Throwing is an importsnt skill for many primates and they can all be seen practicing it.
Blather. No other primate known has ever purposefully skipped stones on the water.

Using materials for protection is common in the animal world. Snails make shells. Elephants cover themselves with mud to protect from flies. Birds build nests.
But none wear shoes. No other mammal thinks to protect even their own feet.

None of these say Nike on the side but animals do 'trademark' their dens and territories don't they?
Irrelevant blather.

Ever watch a cat dreaming? Their legs start to twitch as they are no doubt exploring potential environs, chasing and being chased, in their minds. Dreaming is also a form of practice .
Irrelevant blather. They have no concept of space, therefore can have no context from which to draw. Dreaming of space is strictly a human characteristic.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2012
Self-awareness is a more useful term.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Many species will recognize themselves in a mirror.
Some, not many. Humans, Great Apes, Bottlenose dolphins, Orcas, Elephants, and European Magpies.

http://en.wikiped...ror_test

Many will exhibit behaviors which indicate abstract thinking, planning, deception.


No single other animal exhibits anything like the complexity of cognition and behaviors humans posses. To suggest this doesn't make humans cognitively superior, is stupid.

These traits are distinguishable from human traits only by degree.


Sure, many differences are a matter of degree, but nonetheless are real.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2012
Normally, shouldn't nuns rather die themselves first than perpetrate such an act against another?
I have heard many tales of abuse from catholic school students. Also the canadian holocaust:

"Irene Favel, survivor of Muscowequan Catholic residential school in Lestock, Saskatchewan, describes seeing a newborn baby thrown alive into a furnace at that school by a priest in 1944."
http://www.hidden...ory.org/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2012
Blather. No other primate known has ever purposefully skipped stones on the water.
Now are you being dim on purpose?? 'Play' is the practice and refinement of motor skills. We do it. Apes do it. Here is a throwing game that this chimp obviously finds entertaining:
http://www.youtub...D5OSkJ_Q
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
-And I am sure that chimp is thinking exactly this. So to speak. And giggling in that pecular ape manner.
But none wear shoes. No other mammal thinks to protect even their own feet.
Uh because they dont have to? Neither did humans before shoes were invented.

Here you go. Meet your uncle. http://phys.org/n...l#ajTabs
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2012
No single other animal exhibits anything like the complexity of cognition and behaviors humans posses.
Superior in what ways? "Cognition: 1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment." -Animals are obviously superior in many of the things they need to do in the course of being animals. You are not nearly as cognitively able as an eagle, to fly and spot prey from a great height.
To suggest this doesn't make humans cognitively superior, is stupid.
I submit that you are cognitively ignorant of what the tern 'cognition' means. This renders you 'stupid' for the purposes of this discussion.
Dreaming of space is strictly a human characteristic.
You mean outer space? Well neither did your grandfather. Are you calling your grandfather stupid?

And if you are referring to spacial acuity then obviously cats have much better cognition as they are more nimble, more agile, and more acrobatic than any current or past human.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2012
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Max Planck
Read more at http://www.brainy...r7SIo.99
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2012
Now are you being dim on purpose?? 'Play' is the practice and refinement of motor skills. We do it. Apes do it. Here is a throwing game that this chimp obviously finds entertaining:
I'm giving you 4 stars just for this video.

However, the chimp isn't skipping stones. His behavior is as far removed from purposely skipping stones in a friendly competition, as building and utilizing advanced telescopes to view the stars is from just looking around. If you can't see the profound difference, then I'd be worried about your cognitive assets.

-And I am sure that chimp is thinking exactly this. So to speak. And giggling in that pecular ape manner.
It's normal for people to anthropomorphize our feelings onto other animals, and there's no doubt animals can get bored, but I wouldn't presume to suggest chimps can naturally cognate a formulated (phrased form) thought.

continued...

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2012
Uh because they dont have to? Neither did humans before shoes were invented.
Here you're proving my point for me. Humans didn't have to wear shoes, anymore than any other soft footed animal. But we cogitated the value of foot protection and chose to do so (and who can argue the aesthetic benefits, particularly for the ladies?). No other animal has even come close to this seemingly simple but strongly beneficial behavior.

Here you go. Meet your uncle.
Funny. My parents were fond of the phrase, "I'll be a monkey's uncle." (popularized after the Scopes trial).

But anyway, most social animals have cues they use to communicate (even single cell organisms). Suggesting these are the basis for a complex spoken language used to convey complex cognitive concepts, is ridiculous.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2012
Superior in what ways? "Cognition: 1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment." -Animals are obviously superior in many of the things they need to do in the course of being animals. You are not nearly as cognitively able as an eagle, to fly and spot prey from a great height.
I would argue I am much more so, as I have the ability to observe, reason out and comprehend the process, and adapt and modify the process to my benefit (hence falconry).

I submit that you are cognitively ignorant of what the tern 'cognition' means. This renders you 'stupid' for the purposes of this discussion.
And I would argue your lack of foresight in regards to falconry proves your the one with the cognitive shortcoming.

You mean outer space? Well neither did your grandfather. Are you calling your grandfather stupid?
I don't know that he didn't dream of space, and as his brother worked for Lockheed...

continued...
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2012
And if you are referring to spacial acuity then obviously cats have much better cognition as they are more nimble, more agile, and more acrobatic than any current or past human.
Oh, I highly doubt that. Do you use ANY cognition when formulating these thoughts?

For instance: I've never seen a cat climb the face of Half Dome, swing on the parallel bars, jump out of an airplane, hotdog on skis, skate the half pipe, or even stand on one foot.

Sure, some animals are bigger, stronger, and faster than humans (under certain circumstances), but physical characteristics are irrelevant to the conversation. Cognitive superiority is the issue.

I can understand why a cat keeps its balance, whereas the cat hasn't a clue.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2012
I have heard many tales of abuse from catholic school students. Also the canadian holocaust:

"Irene Favel, survivor of Muscowequan Catholic residential school in Lestock, Saskatchewan, describes seeing a newborn baby thrown alive into a furnace at that school by a priest in 1944."
http://www.hidden...ory.org/
So all you're doing is supporting my statement regarding violence. Commiting acts of violence, regardless of the justification, is still violence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2012
However, the chimp isn't skipping stones. His behavior is as far removed from purposely skipping stones in a friendly competition, as building and utilizing advanced telescopes to view the stars is from just looking around.
Indeed. Throwing turds at moving targets is far harder than bouncing stones off the water. Note how the chimp pretends to be ignoring the humans, waiting for the proper moment. Note his victory display afterwards. You throw stones at a pond and think how wonderful Thoreau was. Big deal.
For instance: I've never seen a cat climb the face of Half Dome, swing on the parallel bars, jump out of an airplane, hotdog on skis, skate the half pipe, or even stand on one foot.
You just dont know enough about cats. Animals can do all these things in equivalence or in fact far better than humans. Picture a cheetah running down a gazelle.

Humans are weak, clumsy, and defenseless which is why they needed weapons when they climbed down out of the trees. And shoes.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2012
No, it is a scientific organization. It's is charged with producing a meta-analysis of existing peer reviewed science and produce a series of summary reports of that analysis.

"IPCC is NOT a political organization?" - RyggTard

RyggTard is about as ignorant of science as one can possibly be.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2012
The head of the IPCC is an Industrial Engineer.
Nothing wrong with industrial engineering but the head of the UN's climate organization is an industrial engineer, not a climate scientist or a geo physicist?
xen_uno
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2012
So what ryg? .. either he can understand the data or not. What's your point? Maybe he moonlights as one, or has a minor in the field. Doubt they would have hired him if he didn't have something going on.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2012
So what ryg? .. either he can understand the data or not. What's your point? Maybe he moonlights as one, or has a minor in the field. Doubt they would have hired him if he didn't have something going on.

AGWites consistently assert that if you are NOT climate scientist you can't critique AGW or IPCC.

"In July 2001, Dr R K Pachauri was appointed Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India.[13]"
No politics here.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2012
If he were performing the meta-analysis I would be concerned.

But he isn't. He provides the organization and coordination.

"but the head of the UN's climate organization is an industrial engineer, not a climate scientist or a geo physicist?" - RyggTard

In that he is qualified.

Clearly you know very little about science or engineering.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2012
False.

"AGWites consistently assert that if you are NOT climate scientist you can't critique AGW or IPCC." - RyggTard

Science accepts valid scientific arguments from anyone.

So far the Denialists haven't provided any. But resort to echoing the vapid pronouncements of failed, former radio weathermen (watts), corrupt old men (singer, idso, etc.) and the dead men...

http://www.source...Medicine

to support their lunatic positions.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2012
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Max Planck
Read more at http://www.brainy...r7SIo.99


Good one R2. I don't like your politics, but occasionally you have a good one.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2012
Indeed. Throwing turds at moving targets is far harder than bouncing stones off the water.
Hardly.

Note how the chimp pretends to be ignoring the humans, waiting for the proper moment. Note his victory display afterwards. You throw stones at a pond and think how wonderful Thoreau was. Big deal.
It is a big deal, and that you don't see it, is sad.

You just dont know enough about cats. Animals can do all these things in equivalence or in fact far better than humans. Picture a cheetah running down a gazelle.
Cheetahs tire, and the gazelle escapes. Gazelles do not escape the persistent human hunter.

Humans are weak, clumsy, and defenseless which is why they needed weapons when they climbed down out of the trees. And shoes.
Physically fit humans are strong, versatile, and naturally tougher than most animals. That, along with our cognitive capabilities, has made us what we are. We not only dominate the animal kingdom, but we dominate our environment as well.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2012
We not only dominate the animal kingdom, but we dominate our environment as well.

I agree.
I wonder why the socialists here don't agree with this? They act like they must agree since they believe they can control the earths' climate they assert man is destroying with geo-engineering.
The schism I believe lies in the words of Ben Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility." Socialists want the power, but not the responsibility.
Obama has demonstrated this for the past three years blaming everyone but his socialist policies for the failing economy. But then what he and his fellow travelers want is the power regardless of the results.
At least the communist Chinese understand how wealth is created and haven't killed their economic engines. But wait until their political power is threatened and the economy will be the first casualty.

More news stories

Cyber buddy is better than 'no buddy'

A Michigan State University researcher is looking to give exercise enthusiasts the extra nudge they need during a workout, and her latest research shows that a cyber buddy can help.