Farmers skeptical about validity of climate change

May 09, 2014 by Mick Kulikowski

The recently released National Climate Assessment, reported by a team of 300 experts, including a panel from the National Academy of Sciences, asserts that climate change is already impacting the United States, and that the warming of the past 50 years is "primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

Ask American farmers about climate change and who or what is causing it, though, and you're likely to get a collective shrug in response.

A recent survey in four states, led by NC State economist Roderick Rejesus, shows that farmers don't readily accept the concept of climate change or the science behind it. They also have trouble believing would suffer due to climate change.

The study polled 1,300 farmers from four agricultural states – North Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Wisconsin – and asked them questions about climate change and its effects, as well as what they would do if climate change brought about extreme weather in the future.

In three of the states only about a quarter of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that climate change has been scientifically proven. North Carolina farmers were more apt to agree or strongly agree with that statement, with 36 percent affirming climate change and its scientific merit.

More farmers in each state agreed or strongly agreed that human activities are causing changes in the earth's climate, but they were outweighed by farmers who had no opinion, farmers who disagreed and farmers who strongly disagreed.

Rejesus noted that a large percentage of respondents – 21 to 31 percent – had no opinion on the questions about climate change and human influence.

"This may suggest that there are still a lot of farmers uncertain about climate change," Rejesus said. "There may still be value in disseminating scientific information about climate change to producers."

A majority of farmers agreed or strongly agreed that normal weather cycles explain most of all recent changes in climate, and that the El Nino/La Nina cycle of weather patterns is real and affects agricultural production where they live. Fewer farmers had no opinion on these two questions.

Approximately 70 percent responded that climate change would have little effect on production, predicting a 5 percent or less increase or decrease in crop yields.

In response to extreme weather caused by climate change, farmers reported that they would be likely to diversify crops, buy crop insurance, modify lease and rental agreements and even leave farming. In all states except Mississippi, farmers did not report that they would increase irrigation in response to , while Mississippi farmers reported that they would irrigate crops more.

"Knowing that producers are likely climate change skeptics is important information to scientists and extension personnel promoting and adaptation practices," Rejesus said. "It may be advisable to just not mention '' when engaging , but rather talk about how these mitigation and adaptation practices can economically benefit their operations."

The study appears in the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

Explore further: Agroforestry can ensure food security and mitigate the effects of climate change in Africa

More information: The study, U.S." Agricultural Producer Perceptions of Climate Change," is available online: ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream… 157312/2/jaae580.pdf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

44 minutes ago

Oil services company Halliburton said Tuesday it would pay a $1.1 billion settlement over its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil rig blowout that led to the United States' most disastrous oil spill.

Underwater grass comeback bodes well for Chesapeake Bay

1 hour ago

The Susquehanna Flats, a large bed of underwater grasses near the mouth of the Susquehanna River, virtually disappeared from the upper Chesapeake Bay after Tropical Storm Agnes more than 40 years ago. However, ...

Clean air halves health costs in Chinese city

3 hours ago

Air pollution regulations over the last decade in Taiyuan, China, have substantially improved the health of people living there, accounting for a greater than 50% reduction in costs associated with loss of life and disability ...

User comments : 270

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Fungussa
3.2 / 5 (20) May 09, 2014
Since scientific facts fail to convince them, maybe a bit of harsh experiential evidence with significant crop failure, will convince them.
PsycheOne
2.4 / 5 (26) May 09, 2014
I suspect farmers develop an almost instinctive sense for weather and climate. If they're not worried, I'm not worried.

Go farmers!
ES Expounder
3.3 / 5 (13) May 09, 2014

Farmers are not inclined to modify agricultural practices - knowing that crop insurance will cover at least a portion of any economic loss associated with climate change.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (15) May 09, 2014
Farmers are not inclined to make changes to agricultural practices -

Farm much?
Actually farmers have made significant changes. They have been planting all the corn and soy-beans they can to sell to ethanol and bio-diesel plants.
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (10) May 09, 2014
Another idea that farmers reject is messing with clock twice a year.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (18) May 09, 2014
Since scientific facts fail to convince them, maybe a bit of harsh experiential evidence with significant crop failure, will convince them.

Unfortunately this may be true. I don't know of many farmers who have the time or inclination to read up on the latest scientific evidence regarding global warming, and they do tend to be more conservative than the average, so that may explain a big part of what is being found here. I would caution climate researchers the world over to be very considerate of farmer's opinions regarding their crops, as they are is the best position to know.

Farmers tend to be slow to react to environmental change (their reaction to the dust bowl weather of the 30's is an example of that) but when they are shown practical, real-time evidence they are quick to grasp and utilize it. We ignore their input at our peril.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (18) May 09, 2014
I suspect farmers develop an almost instinctive sense for weather and climate. If they're not worried, I'm not worried.

Go farmers!


Where does that come from, then?
Are they psychic?
yes, as a meteorologist, I have many times wondered at the public's willingness to believe, simple folklore as regards weather (note it would have to be weather as climate is over decades and for a human to take on board changes then because of the natural variations of weather overlying climate - it would need at least 2 whole cycles to be unmasked ... so that's of the order of 60 years).
It's blindingly obvious to me that they would deny a warming word - well in the US anyway, given an unwillingness to read up the science and the quality of it's reporting in the media there..
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (14) May 09, 2014
Another idea that farmers reject is messing with clock twice a year.
No, that's not what they reject; they don't care because they get up with the sun and work until they are done regardless of what time us urbanites think it is. It's not rejection so much as dismissal.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 09, 2014
I don't know of many farmers

How many farmers do you know?
santor
1.4 / 5 (11) May 09, 2014
They ignore recent research showing that pollution from China is causing much of the adverse weather in North America. Makes them look a little incompetent and not very convincing.

https://www.googl...ie=UTF-8
Sinister1812
4.1 / 5 (9) May 09, 2014
I suspect farmers develop an almost instinctive sense for weather and climate. If they're not worried, I'm not worried.


They also have inbuilt GPS and ESP... lol
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) May 09, 2014
How many farmers do you know?
Bait much stupid? More than you.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) May 09, 2014
How many farmers do you know?
Bait much stupid? More than you.

I was raised on a farm and have friends and family who are farming.
You?
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (20) May 09, 2014
How many farmers do you know?
Bait much stupid? More than you.

I was raised on a farm and have friends and family who are farming.
You?


Yes, and you typify much of the conservatism, resistance to change, and dependence upon freimarket corporate agricultural economic ideology of which so many of them are victim.

Your arrogance and stupidity in assuming that your "knowledge" is unique is also typical.

Moron.

It is just these attitudes and prejudices that virtually assure that American agriculture will be very slow --and in many cases unable or unwilling-- to adjust to the very real pressures warming will put upon the viability of our food production system.

The Commodities Vampires are slavering with anticipation.

TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (14) May 09, 2014
"It is just these attitudes and prejudices that virtually assure that American agriculture will be very slow --and in many cases unable or unwilling-- to adjust to the very real pressures warming will put upon the viability of our food production system."

So you are progressive thinker? Why this remarkable lack of vision, then? For god sake, people mastered how to synthesize DNA with third base pair -- not existent in nature. And you imply that this puny 0.1K global temperature increase would disrupt world food production? Of course, the name "Monsanto" (or big business, in general) acts like red cape on bull in Spanish bullfighting.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) May 09, 2014
Your arrogance and stupidity in assuming that your "knowledge" is unique is also typical.

Cali, projecting again?
You and Maggy are making unsupported assumptions about all farmers.
Which is why I asked how you know anything about farming.
But, once again, instead of a rational response, ....
I am not surprised.
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (16) May 09, 2014
Your arrogance and stupidity in assuming that your "knowledge" is unique is also typical.

Cali, projecting again?
You and Maggy are making unsupported assumptions about all farmers.
Which is why I asked how you know anything about farming.
But, once again, instead of a rational response, ....
I am not surprised.


Another deficit from which your type of moron suffers is poor reading comprehension. Which explains why your response indicates so little understanding of my comment.

I am not surprised.

My comment was not about "all farmers" --just those afflicted by the same failure of imagination and ability to think rationally and objectively as you have demonstrated, here, over'n'over'n'over'n'over.

And yes, I also grew up in Farming country, worked farms, and know many farmers.

As I said, your experience is in no way unique, nor does it guarantee you any exclusive insight into agricultural practices, or those engaged in them.

Moron.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) May 09, 2014
I wasn't talking to Cali but Mangy.

Does Cali = Mangy?
any exclusive insight

I never asserted it did. Mangy so asserted such exclusive insight.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) May 09, 2014
How many farmers do you know?
Bait much stupid? More than you.

I was raised on a farm and have friends and family who are farming.
You?
I live in a farming town and my business dealings are with farmers nearly every day.

Your point beyond begging the question?
Maggnus
4 / 5 (16) May 09, 2014
So you are progressive thinker? Why this remarkable lack of vision, then? For god sake, people mastered how to synthesize DNA with third base pair -- not existent in nature. And you imply that this puny 0.1K global temperature increase would disrupt world food production? Of course, the name "Monsanto" (or big business, in general) acts like red cape on bull in Spanish bullfighting.
Yes, the attitude that typifies contrarianism: "I don't see how it can work, so the scientists are conspiring to steal my freedoms". Here's a quote mine for you:

"Liberals are glad to accept market-based approaches to curbing emissions, like cap-and-trade, because they've been shown to be effective. Meanwhile, Republicans, who first came up with the cap-and-trade approach, have abandoned it now that their party has veered further to the right — moving from a preference for efficient market-oriented solutions to no solutions at all." - Ben Adler.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (16) May 09, 2014
Mangy so asserted such exclusive insight.
"Mangy" made no such assertion. Your begging the question and then asserting an exclusive insight is what Cali was talking about.

Such as: "Actually farmers have made significant changes. They have been planting all the corn and soy-beans they can to sell to ethanol and bio-diesel plants." which is utter BS but fits in with your delusions and irrational paranoia.
Eddy Courant
2.2 / 5 (13) May 09, 2014
Farmers aren't buying it either. The Climate Horrorists are finding it a tough sell. No warming for 17 years. No "hidden heat" hiding in the oceans and causing them to expand. No sale!
3432682
2.2 / 5 (13) May 09, 2014
"the latest scientific evidence on climate change"

Is zero. Theories and predictions are not evidence. Evidence come from thermometers and weather records. We are 1.5 degrees warmer than the little ice age. Yawn. All weather events are in normal ranges. The warming theory stopped working in 1998. Case closed. Time to work on a new theory.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (13) May 09, 2014
I wasn't talking to Cali but Mangy.

Does Cali = Mangy?
any exclusive insight

I never asserted it did. Mangy so asserted such exclusive insight.


Back behind the wheel of the Dodge goes rygsuckn'.

Moron.

Caliban
3.3 / 5 (12) May 09, 2014
"the latest scientific evidence on climate change"

Is zero. Theories and predictions are not evidence. Evidence come from thermometers and weather records. We are 1.5 degrees warmer than the little ice age. Yawn. All weather events are in normal ranges. The warming theory stopped working in 1998. Case closed. Time to work on a new theory.


Another denialspore springs to life, watered by the tears of PO's resident trolls.

Hey, Maggnus --got any of that Denialbane fungicide handy?

Looks like it's time for yet another application.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (15) May 09, 2014
I was raised on a farm and have friends and family who are farming.
You?
@Rygtard
Maggnus is surrounded by them
I live in a farming town and my business dealings are with farmers nearly every day
See?
and I agree with his comment. I live on one, and I am surrounded by them. most of us only worry about the season, whether the sun is out or not, and the date ONLY if there is something important comming up
Cali, projecting again?
actually, he is spot on in his assessment as well, given your activities/responses on this site
I wasn't talking to Cali
then next time be more specific. there is nothing to specify that you were NOT talking to Caliban
howhot2
3.8 / 5 (13) May 10, 2014
My uncle (a die hard liberal) is a farmer in the thick of Kansas. He hates the state gov by-the-way and says all they do is screw people over and then say they didn't. (which is typical when republicans take over a state government).. Anyway; he grows wheat, corn, soygrum and grass based on what the soil needs, not what oil companies want. He doesn't run a small farm either. We are talking multi-sections here. He knows his stuff. He sees the global warming problems first hand and what he has told me is frightening. Irrigation wells are dry. Droughts are now an everyday pattern. Dust bowl conditions are starting be the norm. The only industry is Fracking or Walmart.

As you drive across that state, it is obvious the damage that AGW is causing. If you add in the expected 10C addition warming for the region (in 2050), it will really be scorched Earth. Howhot do you want the planet to be deniers?

runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014
Farmers aren't buying it either. The Climate Horrorists are finding it a tough sell. No warming for 17 years. No "hidden heat" hiding in the oceans and causing them to expand. No sale!


Would you be so kind as to provide links as to the peer-reviewed veracity of this claim my friend?
Otherwise it is mere hand-waving and worthless. As most of Denialist's mythic claims are.

Because it's all a socialist plot to take your tax dollars and the world's experts are wrong. How do you know this? well, because you've been to Mr Watts blog ... and it's blindingly obvious if you read that, isn't it?
I mean it's populated by sane individuals expert in all the diverse scientific fields that have reached an overwhelming consensus as to the reality of GHG causing AGW - and have no ideological axe to grind.
Stands to reason that, well, it's reasoned truth.
FFS
Andragogue
2.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
Important question omitted:
Do you watch Fox News?
Dr_toad
May 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SamB
1.9 / 5 (10) May 10, 2014


Another denialspore springs to life, watered by the tears of PO's resident trolls.

Hey, Maggnus --got any of that Denialbane fungicide handy?

Looks like it's time for yet another application.


I don't think condescending and snotty remarks will actually attract others to your way of thinking. In fact the more I hear these types of retorts the more I resist any compromises to my beliefs!
If we cannot have a difference of opinions without sliding into to insults then nothing will be gained.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
They have been planting all the corn and soy-beans they can to sell to ethanol and bio-diesel plants." which is utter BS


Not in SD.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
"For the last few decades, U.S. farm policy has encouraged overproduction in a few crops like corn, soybeans and wheat. It has done so by eliminating production and price controls and encouraging farmers to plant from fencerow to fencerow. "
http://cjonline.c...on.shtml
Ethanol subsidies were also the result of the clean air act requiring oxygenated gasoline. MTBE was used in the west because it was a byproduct of oil made by Chevron, but it polluted groundwater. Ethanol was used in the mid-west, but there were not enough production facilities to immediately replace MTBE and the US govt refused to allow imports.
Once again, the socialist regulatory state weaves a tangled web.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) May 10, 2014
It is just these attitudes and prejudices that virtually assure that American agriculture will be very slow --and in many cases unable or unwilling-- to adjust to the very real pressures warming will put upon the viability of our food production system.


Once there are actual Real effects of climate to adapt to, they will adapt to it, as it is in their best interest to do so, as they have for the entire of human history. Are you saying that mankind has never migrated? Perhaps "climate change" will be beneficial for mankind.

What is certain is that A) it will occur too slowly and obscured by normal variation of climate for any pinheaded tree-hugger to be able to point it out with any justified self-righteousness, and B) No one, not farmers, nor the general masses will voluntarily act counter to their best interest on account of hypothesis alone, but only upon Actual Forces Effecting Them and thus their immediate choice.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (14) May 10, 2014
He sees the global warming problems first hand and what he has told me is frightening. Irrigation wells are dry. Droughts are now an everyday pattern. Dust bowl conditions are starting be the norm. ... As you drive across that state, it is obvious the damage that AGW is causing.


Only an idiot would think that you could 'look out the window' and see AGW occurring. 'Too deep in the forest to see the trees', comes to mind.

And yet, these same liberal bed-wetters who buy into the hysteria, say they can literally see AGW happening, but at the same time say the prior 17 years of global warming pause, means nothing in terms of hypothesis.

Caliban
3.9 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014

Once there are actual Real effects of climate to adapt to, they will adapt to it, as it is in their best interest to do so, as they have for the entire of human history. Are you saying that mankind has never migrated? Perhaps "climate change" will be beneficial for mankind.


and

Only an idiot would think that you could 'look out the window' and see AGW occurring. 'Too deep in the forest to see the trees', comes to mind.


"Boiling' the Frog" is more like it.

nonoUNme again contradicts himself amidst his rush to proselytize.
First saying that there is no warming Effect --yet--, but then saying that if there were any Effect, it would be unfolding too slowly to be observable.

As you apparently didn't know, many farmers have been farming for 50 years and more, closely follow the science and data, understand warming's effects, and are very well able to detect shifts in local weather patterns over decadal timescales --aka, Climate.

Moron.



Another denialspore springs to life, watered by the tears of PO's resident trolls.

Hey, Maggnus --got any of that Denialbane fungicide handy?

Looks like it's time for yet another application.


I don't think condescending and snotty remarks will actually attract others to your way of thinking. In fact the more I hear these types of retorts the more I resist any compromises to my beliefs!
If we cannot have a difference of opinions without sliding into to insults then nothing will be gained.
Caliban
3.6 / 5 (12) May 10, 2014


Another denialspore springs to life, watered by the tears of PO's resident trolls.

Hey, Maggnus --got any of that Denialbane fungicide handy?

Looks like it's time for yet another application.


I don't think condescending and snotty remarks will actually attract others to your way of thinking. In fact the more I hear these types of retorts the more I resist any compromises to my beliefs!
If we cannot have a difference of opinions without sliding into to insults then nothing will be gained.

Apologies for offending your delicate sensibilities, SamB.

I'm guessing that you don't spend much time here, or it would be perfectly obvious to you that there are many commenters here which are not interested in any kind of reasoned, objective debate --and very much less in actually learning anything-- but are here to TROLL.

Their behaviour is so stereotypical that it can be "spotted" (it's TROLLhide) from a mile away.

But I'll benefit you the doubt --just this once.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
nonoUNme again contradicts himself ...
First saying that there is no warming Effect --yet--, but then saying that if there were any Effect, it would be unfolding too slowly to be observable.


I have never said "there is no warming Effect", you just made that up, so not only are YOU a moron, but a lying one at that.

Also, I never said that AGW is unobservable, you dishonest troll,... it concerns quantifiable average global temperature, not local climate in a particular farmers back yard on a Tuesday at 3:30 pm.

They would be adapting to local scale climate, not Global Climate for which Global Warming is concerned with, you imbecile,... the point was that on that account it becomes impossible to attribute local climate variations to AGW, a fact that even climatologists make use of when it benefits them to do so.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
there are many commenters here which are not interested in any kind of reasoned, objective debate --and very much less in actually learning anything-- but are here to TROLL.


Yes, like you and the rest of the phys.org troll-rating cabal. Is it objective to misrepresent another's post?
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014
If the global increase in temperature over the previous one hundred years has only been 1°C, is it reasonable and objective to claim that particular local climate variations are attributable to AGW, and is it reasonable and objective to claim that such local climate effects are "obviously" due to AGW?

The AGW hysteria is anything but reasonable and objective.
Caliban
4 / 5 (12) May 10, 2014
Once there are actual Real effects of climate to adapt to, they will adapt to it, as it is in their best interest to do so, as they have for the entire of human history. Are you saying that mankind has never migrated? Perhaps "climate change" will be beneficial for mankind.


and

Only an idiot would think that you could 'look out the window' and see AGW occurring. 'Too deep in the forest to see the trees', comes to mind.


Your words -not mine.

You wrote them, nonoUNme --not me

Now they can't be unsaid.

As you are well aware -an increase in average global surface temperature implicitly includes larger local variations which are most definitely observable, locally, and which occur over time.
Those effects, in aggregate, over time, are Climate.

Don't try to split hairs from your backpeddlecycle. It's unbecoming -even in a faux rationalist such as yourself, who claims to subscribe to the reality of AGW, and then questions its every observable, quantifiable effect.


Pejico
May 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) May 10, 2014
Drought in California is partly due to govt regulations to protect a fish.
Farmers in Oregon were cut off from irrigation water to save a fish.
Once again, people get screwed trusting the state.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014
What is certain is that A) it will occur too slowly and obscured by normal variation of climate
It must be nice to have such philosophical certainty -- especially when it runs counter to what actual science predicts...
for any pinheaded tree-hugger to be able to point it out with any justified self-righteousness
Only those who hug trees could possibly be worried about pollution and its long-term effects. Also, a pox on the righteous: they make the unrighteous feel bad...
and B) No one, not farmers, nor the general masses will voluntarily act counter to their best interest on account of hypothesis alone, but only upon Actual Forces Effecting Them and thus their immediate choice.
As Noumenon stands at a rail crossing and beholds a rapidly approaching locomotive, he will not voluntarily act on account of hypothesis. He will stoically and patiently contemplate until Actual Forces Effecting Him are smearing his remains across the frontal fascia of said locomotive...
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014
Your words -not mine.

You wrote them, nonoUNme --not me


Yes, I wrote them, and you continue to deliberately misrepresent them.

The first quote is me saying that farmers are going to respond to local climate variations, NOT global warming hypothesis. There have always been the former (local climate variations) "for the entire of human history", but not the latter, (global warming hypothesis).

As you are well aware -an increase in average global surface temperature implicitly includes larger local variations which are most definitely observable, locally, and which occur over time.


And as you are aware it is not possible to quantify that locally in any meaningful way. Both sides of the AGW debate misuse the same tactic,... pointing to local climate to support their opposing positions.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014
,... IOW, there is no way that an increase of 1°C from one hundred years ago, is going to be visually noticeable at a local scale now. Perhaps eventually in several decades more,... but not now. My post was in response to an alarmist claiming effects of AGW in his back yard.
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014
Drought in California is partly due to govt regulations to protect a fish.
Brilliant! We finally have an explanation for historically low levels of precipitation and dangerously low snow pack in the Sierras. Kudos!

Also, it was obviously not the government that created and maintains those massive networks of reservoirs and aqueducts. But it IS the government now maliciously leveraging those assets to deny water to its constituents. If only the Central Valley farmers could avoid getting screwed by the state, then the Central Valley would revert to the parched and unproductive desert it is in its natural state... Ditto for all those SoCal denizens: they should know better than to live in a desert, under constant threat of water scarcity. The government obviously screwed them by *forcing* them to live there!
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (12) May 10, 2014
It's complicated. http://www.infowa...-study/, says NOAA Study. If the Texans shouldn't be convinced about relevance of climate change, who else should be?


Alex Jones? InfoWars?

You do understand that information can be decontextualized and used to support pretty much any assertion?

And which is it, anyway --is it NOAA stating this, or "scientists from several federal agencies"

Find us a link to this purported NOAA study --in full, and from an official, credible source-- and we might then be able to give it credence.

Otherwise it's just so much Alex Jones' MoonHowls.

More to the point: understand that weather cannot be uncoupled from Climate in any sense other than instantaneous measurement, and any local variations in weather are essentially instantaneous Climate.

More to the point still: if there wasn't the expected inflow of Gulf moisture, then there was a reason for it.

Guess what that was.

PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (10) May 10, 2014
Both sides of the AGW debate misuse the same tactic...
Except there is no "debate". There is only a corporate propaganda war against scientific findings. Nothing new here, really. Same thing as last century's wars on behalf of lead, smoking, CFCs, DDT, MTBE, etc. and in favor of such things as acid rain and marijuana bans, etc. etc. etc.
there is no way that an increase of 1°C from one hundred years ago, is going to be visually noticeable at a local scale
Unless maybe you're in Alaska, and your house just sunk into the swamp that used to be permafrost... Or you're a farmer or rancher, and suddenly find your land overran by warm-temperature pests that have never been seen there in all of recorded history... Or some such.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014
B) No one, not farmers, nor the general masses will voluntarily act counter to their best interest on account of hypothesis alone, but only upon Actual Forces Effecting Them and thus their immediate choice.

As Noumenon stands at a rail crossing and beholds a rapidly approaching locomotive, he will not voluntarily act on account of hypothesis.


Well obviously if I see a locomotive, it is not hypothesis.

The point is not what Noumenon wants to be the case, but rather what is in fact the case. Even if I was inflicted with AGW-hysteria myself, I could not help but notice that the global masses of people and economies are not adjusting their CO2 based energy use in accord with the alarmism propaganda. We continue to accelerate the consumption of oil for example, ...so it should be obvious that actual economic realities will need to cause a change in this state, while the hypothesis of AGW alarmism continues to collect dust......
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (10) May 10, 2014
,... IOW, there is no way that an increase of 1°C from one hundred years ago, is going to be visually noticeable at a local scale now. Perhaps eventually in several decades more,... but not now. My post was in response to an alarmist claiming effects of AGW in his back yard.


...hairsplitting, backpedalcycling...very unbecoming.

Are those crybaby tears streaming down your bulging cheeks, nonoUNme?

Were you aware, nonoUNme, that many farmers are college educated? Own computers? Have internet access? Are in touch with Federal, State, Local, and Academic agencies? Belong to professional associations? Keep Journals and logbooks? Compare logged weather data(and a host of others) from week to week? Month to month? Year to year? Decade to decade?

Your arrogant, dismissive, pedagogueic attitude towards farmers is indefensible and is a stink in the nostrils of rational people the whole world over.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
Both sides of the AGW debate misuse the same tactic...

Except there is no "debate".


Whether one side of the debate was a valid one or not, both sides make use of the same invalid argument when it is beneficial to do so, but then opposes then same type of local argument when it is not.

There is only a corporate propaganda war against scientific findings. Nothing new here, really. Same thing as last century's wars on behalf of lead, smoking, CFCs, DDT, MTBE, etc. and in favor of such things as acid rain and marijuana bans, etc. etc. etc.


Corporations are powerless without demand. World economies, and the masses continue to demand co2 based energy,.... while if that demand subsided those same corporations would simply invest in whatever alternative energy successively competed with co2. So blaming corporations for supplying demand is meaningless. You should rather blame AGW believers who act egoistically.
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
Well obviously if I see a locomotive, it is not hypothesis.
Are you sure you see it? I mean, willfully blindfolded as you are...
Even if I was inflicted with AGW-hysteria myself
You mean, if you were well versed in the subject matter...
I could not help but notice that the global masses of people and economies are not adjusting their CO2 based energy use in accord with the alarmism propaganda.
And that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the FUD spread so energetically by the likes of you (let alone FUX News and Co.) Natch.
We continue to accelerate the consumption of oil for example
Pretty freakishly stupid and reckless of us, isn't it?
it should be obvious that actual economic realities will need to cause a change in this state
Like for instance, acid rain couldn't be addressed until actual economic realities intervened. It wasn't anything to do with public policy overriding natural economic tendencies. How does runrig put it? Oh yeah:

FFS
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014
,... IOW, there is no way that an increase of 1°C from one hundred years ago, is going to be visually noticeable at a local scale now. Perhaps eventually in several decades more,... but not now. My post was in response to an alarmist claiming effects of AGW in his back yard.


[...childish insults....]

Were you aware, nonoUNme, that many farmers are college educated? Own computers? Have internet access? Are in touch with Federal, State, Local, and Academic agencies? Belong to professional associations? Keep Journals and logbooks? Compare logged weather data(and a host of others) from week to week? Month to month? Year to year? Decade to decade?

[....pointless presumptuous babble...]



Unless they're also magic, they're not going to 'notice' the effects of a 1°C change in GLOBAL TEMPERATURE as compared to one hundred years ago.

If you think otherwise, you are precisely the the type of non-objective and irrational bed-wetter, the far left counts on for votes.
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
So blaming corporations for supplying demand is meaningless.
Yeah, it's not like they ever spend any effort to engineer said demand, or to deny any negative consequences of their products that might discourage the customer or cause any deterioration in demand -- or worse, bring about accountability for the harms their business and products have wrought and continue to wreak...

Take Coke's insistence that their massively sugar-loaded beverages are not a major contributing factor to childhood obesity and obscenely rising rates of diabetes. Pretty "powerless", aren't they?
You should rather blame AGW believers who act egoistically.
As opposed to corporations, who are all about altruism. What was that? Oh yeah:

FFS
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) May 10, 2014
They would be adapting to local scale climate, not Global Climate for which Global Warming is concerned with, you imbecile,... the point was that on that account it becomes impossible to attribute local climate variations to AGW, a fact that even climatologists make use of when it benefits them to do so.

No one can say that an individual event is wholly attributable to AGW, because AGW is merely the "carrier signal" for climate and on short time scales, even more chaotic weather.
All that can be attributed is a frequency change of certain events and swings either above the long term average extremes ( both warm and cold - but overwhelmingly warm/stormy ).
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
I could not help but notice that the global masses of people and economies are not adjusting their CO2 based energy use in accord with the alarmism propaganda.

And that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the FUD spread so energetically by the likes of you (let alone FUX News and Co.)


Nope, because given the stats on how many believe that AGW is an issue of concern, it is clear that they are using CO2 based energy as much as the "denialists", nor are they en masses decreasing their standards of living. In fact, it's becoming more and more the fault of the 'believers' than the 'denialist' as the % of those accepting it as a reality, grows and yet the consumption of oil continues to increase,... or do you not like math?

You can take the simpleton view and blame fox news and the Coch brothers, or you can grow up into adulthood and understand that the fact that world economies float on a bed of oil and coal, has more to do with it.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) May 10, 2014
If the global increase in temperature over the previous one hundred years has only been 1°C, is it reasonable and objective to claim that particular local climate variations are attributable to AGW, and is it reasonable and objective to claim that such local climate effects are "obviously" due to AGW?

The AGW hysteria is anything but reasonable and objective.


yes it most certainly is when considering that the average warming for the planet means that the Arctic has warmed MUCH more, and thus is weakening the (summer) polar jet-stream - thus making weather patterns much more likely to get "stuck" and bringing drought/heat in the ridges of the Rossby waves and wet/cool/flooding in the troughs. This only of course considers temperate northern hemispheric regions. Monsoon climates will suffer much more variability also.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
And as you are aware it is not possible to quantify that locally in any meaningful way. Both sides of the AGW debate misuse the same tactic,... pointing to local climate to support their opposing positions.

yes it is...
Said jet stream weakening (see earlier post) due the greater warming of the Arctic can be directly attributed to AGW. This does not cause trully local effects, but rather hemispheric ones.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
it's becoming more and more the fault of the 'believers' than the 'denialist' as the % of those accepting it as reality grows and yet the consumption of oil continues to increase,... or do you not like math?
That externalities of fossil fuels aren't properly integrated into the dysfunctional modern economic equation, is the fault of those who are fighting to change that equation and include those externality costs? Sure boss, any other thoughts you'd like to tank?
it is clear that they are using CO2 based energy as much as the "denialists", nor are they en masses decreasing their standards of living, just like the denialists.
I assume you've researched the actual per-capita trends in developed nations, and therefore your above statement is a *delusional lie*... Of course, I may be wrong and you're just talking out of your bunghole. In case of the latter:

http://www.pbl.nl...2-report

For instance. You're welcome.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
So blaming corporations for supplying demand is meaningless.

Yeah, it's not like they ever spend any effort to engineer said demand, or to deny any negative consequences of their products that might discourage the customer or cause any deterioration in demand


Their job is to maximize profit for the corporation, so why would they voluntarily act differently and put themselves at a disadvantage? It doesn't make economic sense to do so.

They wouldn't care if their profits came from monkey-farts if that was a promising alternative,... so blaming 'evil corporations' for simply supplying what is in fact demanded is childish bed-wetting.

It is demand that is the cause. It is lack of technological alternatives at the respective scale that is the problem, not "deniers" and "evil corporations". It's like you were read a scary bed-(wetting) time book by the far left.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) May 10, 2014
Take Coke's insistence that their massively sugar-loaded beverages are not a major contributing factor to childhood obesity and obscenely rising rates of diabetes. Pretty "powerless", aren't they?


They are categorically correct in that assertion. The problem is NOT the existence of sugar in a free society, the problem is in personal accountability and moderation of consumption.

A government with the legal authority to enforce such 'protection from oneself', is not a government people would ever want to live with.

The greatest threat to personal liberty are the army of social statisticians commanded by 'progressive liberals'.
PinkElephant
3.9 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
so blaming 'evil corporations' for simply supplying what is in fact demanded is childish bed-wetting
They are not 'simply supplying' it. They are *pushing* it. The way a drug-pusher pushes drugs. They actively wage expensive and extensive propaganda wars against scientific findings that have potential to negatively impact their bottom line. *That* is what makes them evil, not the fact that they're supplying a demand.
They wouldn't care if their profits came from monkey-farts if that was a promising alternative
They also wouldn't care how many people suffer or die, as long as it's not anyone they know, and as long as they're never held accountable for it. That's the other major aspect of corporate behavior that makes them evil.
lack of technological alternatives at the respective scale
There are plenty of alternatives. They just cost more (though continue to get cheaper) -- but perhaps not as much as the status quo, IF externality costs were accounted for.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
Corporations are powerless without demand. World economies, and the masses continue to demand co2 based energy,.... while if that demand subsided those same corporations would simply invest in whatever alternative energy successively competed with co2. So blaming corporations for supplying demand is meaningless. You should rather blame AGW believers who act egoistically.

Which is why it is incumbant on the world's experts to communicate that AGW is real and potentially of vast disturbance to humanity, both on an economic but more importantly, on a humanitarian scale.

Sustainable alternatives to carbon burning are becoming increasingly available at low cost - Solar in the sunnier parts, and, for gods sake, can't mankind come up with something better that the reciprocating ICE? Battery technology is the key .. and it will come.
Corporations will never turn to sustainables - the cost of development is too huge to bear - hence the need for government subsidy.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
They would be adapting to local scale climate, not Global Climate for which Global Warming is concerned with, you imbecile,... the point was that on that account it becomes impossible to attribute local climate variations to AGW, a fact that even climatologists make use of when it benefits them to do so.

No one can say that an individual event is wholly attributable to AGW, because AGW is merely the "carrier signal" for climate and on short time scales, even more chaotic weather.
All that can be attributed is a frequency change of certain events and swings either above the long term average extremes ( both warm and cold - but overwhelmingly warm/stormy ).


I agree with this statement. It requires an analysis of longer term data than just seasonal to which farmers would react to.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
And as you are aware it is not possible to quantify that locally in any meaningful way. Both sides of the AGW debate misuse the same tactic,... pointing to local climate to support their opposing positions.

yes it is...
Said jet stream weakening (see earlier post) due the greater warming of the Arctic can be directly attributed to AGW. This does not cause trully local effects, but rather hemispheric ones.


Well that;s what we are talking about,, farmers reacting to AGW.
PinkElephant
3.9 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
Corporations will never turn to sustainables - the cost of development is too huge to bear
To be fair, there are corporations getting spun off Universities all the time, pursuing renewables. It does have its origin in government subsidy, to an extent, but there are companies dedicated to finding and developing alternatives.

However, the ones with most of the money and political influence, tend to be the ones who work to subvert scientific truth and generate faux debates and controversies. They're the vested interests, and they are the ones actively obstructing progress and, through their actions, guaranteeing unabated accumulation of yet-unrealized future damages.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
generate faux debates and controversies

Sounds like the Obama administration.

Hyundai announced they are selling fuel cell powered Tucson's in LA.
Subaru promotes its sustainable factory.
Anyone know of a company that is NOT promoting how 'green' it is?

Years ago McDonald's switched from foam boxes to paper, due to activist pressure.

Years ago cinemas were cajoled into stopping the use of coconut oil for popcorn and 'encouraged' to use transfats by CSPI. Now trans fats are banned and coconut oil is good fo you.
The evil ones are the activists.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
Anyone know of a company that is NOT promoting how 'green' it is?
News Corp? Exxon Mobil? Monsanto? DuPont? Every single corporation running a coal power plant? etc?
The evil ones are the activists.
Indeed. If it weren't for those evil bastards, ryggesogn2 wouldn't be so grievously and unjustly deprived of his daily heavy metal supplements. How shall he sustain his escalating brain damage?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
... the ones with most of the money and political influence, tend to be the ones who work to subvert scientific truth and generate faux debates and controversies. They're the vested interests, and they are the ones actively obstructing progress and, through their actions, guaranteeing unabated accumulation of yet-unrealized future damages.


Your crusade against evil corporations is irrational. If their is a like potential for profit in another industry, say angel-farts, they will just as assume invest in that. The profit potential tends to sift out the BS and daydreaming from reality.

Also, the damage done by voluntarily self imploding their own industry by being "morally righteous" would be more cataclysmic for humanity, than AGW would be in the short term.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 10, 2014
"ExxonMobil Fuels & Lubricants (F&L) recognizes the importance of addressing sustainability in today's global marketplace — balancing economic growth, social development, and environmental protection, so that future generations are not compromised by actions taken today."
http://www.exxonm...ity.aspx
"Two recent reports highlight the progress being made — or not being made — by news media organisations on the sustainability front. In a nutshell, the industry has a long way to go.

"News Corporation (USA) with a reporting quality score of A-. (That's very good.)

Read more: http://www.inma.o...1M5c3mxA
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
"Monsanto was among the founding members of this global initiative, playing a critical role in the early stages of the organization in the development of a scientific framework for the development of related analytical tools. The Sustainability Consortium is an organization of diverse global participants working to make the world more sustainable through better products, services and consumption."
http://www.monsan...ium.aspx

"Sustainability is at the core of what we do - from reducing our operational footprint and creating market-facing sustainable solutions, to addressing the global challenges of the future."
http://www.dupont...ity.html

http://www.duke-e...lity.asp
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) May 10, 2014
"ExxonMobil Fuels & Lubricants (F&L) recognizes the importance of addressing sustainability in today's global marketplace — balancing economic growth, social development, and environmental protection, so that future generations are not compromised by actions taken today."
http://www.exxonm...ity.aspx


More Fool's Gold from the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity.

Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014

Their job is to maximize profit for the corporation, so why would they voluntarily act differently and put themselves at a disadvantage? It doesn't make economic sense to do so.


It makes sense when the "externalized cost" of continuing to do so is environmental degradation to the point of the collapse of civilization and quite possibly an extinction-level event, humanity included.

Your narcissism is sickening and self-justifying in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree as rygsuckn's.

It is amusing to me that you are so smug that you think that you and your kind will somehow be proof against the inevitable effects of this freimarketthink inertia.

I'll be laughing as --relaxin' amidst the ruins-- I gnaw the fat bones of your kind.

A bit of Cholula sauce will kill the rank taste of troll, I reckon.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014

Their job is to maximize profit for the corporation, so why would they voluntarily act differently and put themselves at a disadvantage? It doesn't make economic sense to do so.


It makes sense when the "externalized cost" of continuing to do so is environmental degradation to the point of the collapse of civilization and quite possibly an extinction-level event, humanity included.

Your narcissism is sickening and self-justifying in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree as rygsuckn's.

It is amusing to me that you are so smug that you think that you and your kind will somehow be proof against the inevitable effects of this freimarketthink inertia.

I'll be laughing as --relaxin' amidst the ruins-- I gnaw the fat bones of your kind.

A bit of Cholula sauce will kill the rank taste of troll, I reckon.


I gave you a five for this, for comedy value, both intended and unintended.
PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2014
"ExxonMobil Fuels & Lubricants (F&L) recognizes the importance of addressing sustainability in today's global marketplace — balancing economic growth, social development, and environmental protection, so that future generations are not compromised by actions taken today."
Oh, I didn't realize you were asking how many companies are not running greenwashing campaigns. I thought you were asking about how many companies are genuinely interested in building their business around sustainability. Sorry, my mistake; I keep falling into the trap of assuming that you are someone reasonable enough to have a conversation with...
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
Your crusade against evil corporations is irrational.
Unlike some on this site, I don't crusade. I'm on a day off and in-between tasks; in my normal life, I'm full-time employed and/or otherwise quite preoccupied. Which is why you won't usually find me wasting time here with you drones.
The profit potential tends to sift out the BS and daydreaming from reality.
It also tends to sift out morality and integrity.
the damage done by voluntarily self imploding their own industry by being "morally righteous" would be more cataclysmic for humanity, than AGW would be in the short term.
After all, a warlord won't stop burning and pillaging as long as it's profitable and there are no authorities around to stop him. It's all about economics, you see. Also, cataclysmic implosion of the fossil fuel complex is clearly the only available alternative to doing nothing at all. Mind. Blown.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) May 10, 2014
It makes sense when the "externalized cost" of continuing to do so is environmental degradation to the point of the collapse of civilization and quite possibly an extinction-level event, humanity included.


Statements like that, ...scientifically unfounded hysteria, ....is why "your kind" loses credibility. Who would want to hand political power to lunatics who think that way? It would be the same half-wits who would invoke government coercion to regulate soda because a graph shows obesity amongst children is sloping up.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
The profit potential tends to sift out the BS and daydreaming from reality.

It also tends to sift out morality and integrity.


To maximize profit and to act according to ones self interest is morality of the highest order. Proof; It is this motive force that has increased the standard of living across the globe and is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.

Government control on the other hand has resulted in the greatest amount of suffering and death.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
After all, a warlord won't stop burning and pillaging as long as it's profitable and there are no authorities around to stop him. It's all about economics, you see.


Equating legal consumption and production of CO2 energy, with criminal pillaging of others property, is why you lose credibility.

the damage done by voluntarily self imploding their own industry by being "morally righteous" would be more cataclysmic for humanity, than AGW would be in the short term.

...cataclysmic implosion of the fossil fuel complex is clearly the only available alternative to doing nothing at all.


You're the one implying that corporations are evil and that they should be operating on moral grounds rather than maximizing profit for their investors. Personally, I have no issue with CO2 emission regulations that do not adversely effect the economy as the hysteria would demand.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
egulate soda because a graph shows obesity amongst children is sloping up.

Obesity correlated with the govt campaign to ban fat to be replaced with carbohydrates.
After 40 years of anti-fat hysteria, data show they were wrong, and really had little data to justify the anti-fat hysteria.
It's the same for AGW.
And fortunately for some, there were individual doctors who didn't buy the govt anti-fat hysteria and treated patients with low sugar/starch diets to the benefit of the patients.
Consensus kills.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
To maximize profit and to act according to ones self interest is morality of the highest order.
Nothing higher than that. It's the absolute pinnacle of morality. Like for instance, what slave owners do, those paragons of virtue.
Proof; It is this motive force that has increased the standard of living across the globe and is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.
Standard of living is not just about quantity of possessions, but also about quality of life and whether you are able to eat, drink, and breathe without poisoning yourself at every turn. It's also about whether you're afforded a decent education and a quality upbringing. (And no, a child can't take "personal responsibility" for those things, any more so than a child can vote, serve in the army, or consent to sexual relations.)

Amusing, how CONservantives always discount the role of labor movements, regulations, and social safety nets in their creative re-imagining of the last two centuries...
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
Government control on the other hand has resulted in the greatest amount of suffering and death.
Question: do you know how many varieties, and in what respective quantities, of various pesticides and preservatives you consume with your food on a daily basis? Would you like to know, at least? Well, that's tough shit, because it would be unprofitable for certain people if you knew. Nor would it be advantageous to profitability if careful and independent study of novel chemical compounds was required before they could be unleashed upon the world. However, you can have a second helping of chronic disease, free of charge. And, you are entitled to a heightened risk of dying young from cancer. Among many, many other perks. Thankfully, there isn't anywhere near sufficient government control to prevent you, all of your family, and your offspring (assuming you haven't been rendered sterile) from enjoying all those benefits. Hooray!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
do you know how many varieties, and in what respective quantities, of various pesticides and preservatives you consume with your food on a daily basis?


Do you know how many are natural?
And, ALL pesticides re govt regulated so why don't you trust the govt. pinky?
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (10) May 10, 2014
Equating legal consumption and production of CO2 energy, with criminal pillaging of others property, is why you lose credibility.
Insisting that there are no costs associated with CO2 emissions (never mind all the other concomitant pollution), that must be balanced against the alleged efficiencies and profitability advantages enabled by those emissions, is why you never had any credibility to start with.
You're the one implying that corporations are evil and that they should be operating on moral grounds rather than maximizing profit for their investors.
Evil is as evil does. Corporations started out as government-chartered public service entities. Subsequently, the concept has been twisted and corrupted -- by the vaunted market forces -- to the point that their charters tend to read like manifestos crafted by sociopaths.

And no, I don't expect sociopaths to behave morally. I do expect the rest of society to keep sociopaths in check -- instead of lauding/enabling them.
PinkElephant
3.9 / 5 (11) May 10, 2014
Do you know how many are natural?
Do you?

"The World Health Organization, back in 2006, stated that 25 percent of chronic illness in adults and 33 percent of illness in children under the age of five, is due to accumulation of environmental toxins. That number has gone up since then and may now approach 40 percent of chronic illness. That means that many of our patients' chronic conditions are due to accumulations of solvents, plastics and heavy metals, which damage the liver, kidney, lung, brain, lymphatic drainage system and gut lining."

"Currently, more than 80,000 different chemicals are used and released into the environment in the U.S. alone. At least 10 percent of these have been labeled carcinogenic. The reason only 10 percent are labeled carcinogens is because only 200 of the 80,000 chemicals have been tested by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)."

http://www.toyour...?id=1971

Isn't that awesome?
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (9) May 10, 2014
More fun facts about 'progress' in recent decades:

http://storyofstu...acts.pdf
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
"Plants do contain many chemicals-- hydrazines and mycotoxins, for example-- that are highly toxic to animals and humans. While these compounds may play important roles in influencing the incidence of certain types of human cancer, the exact proportion of cancers that are due to "natural" versus synthetic carcinogens is not known (Perera et al. 1991). However, there is evidence to suggest that synthetic chemicals present in food may increase cancer risk over that which may be posed by the presence of natural toxins alone. "
"However, important caveats should be noted in drawing conclusions from risk analyses of dietary exposure to toxins. "
" Ultimately, it is extremely difficult in the absence of further information to predict the sensitivity of humans to the tumor-promoting, mitogenic, or cytotoxic potential of a given compound. "
http://ipmworld.u...ntel.htm
Shootist
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
Anyone know of a company that is NOT promoting how 'green' it is?
News Corp? Exxon Mobil? Monsanto? DuPont? Every single corporation running a coal power plant? etc?
The evil ones are the activists.
Indeed. If it weren't for those evil bastards, ryggesogn2 wouldn't be so grievously and unjustly deprived of his daily heavy metal supplements. How shall he sustain his escalating brain damage?


You are incorrect.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 11, 2014
" Climate change is something much, much bigger, says Peters, who writes about what scientists know about the earth's climate over the past 1.8 billion years based on the geologic record (glaciers, ice core, soils, etc.).

Peters lays out the "whole story of climate" this way:

Imagine the history of earth's climate over the past 1.8 billion years as an empty 100-yard football field.

Stand at one goal line and start walking toward the opposite end zone.

The first 5 yards – representing about 100,000 years – is a cold period when glaciers covered the earth. The next 1 ½ yards is a warm period, something like we have now.

The alternating cold and warm pattern repeats as you walk down the field. About five yards of ice-age cold followed by 1 ½ yards of warmth,"
http://farmprogre...ole-6864
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) May 11, 2014
"I'm no scientist or ideologue, just a journalist with a farmer's cap. But, I think alarmists are relying heavily on two important, but potentially misleading assumptions. First, they contend that climate change is all manmade, and second, that current climate trends, whatever they might be, will continue on the same path forever."
"Putting on my farmer's cap, I contend that the Earth has always been changing, from day one. "
"Do farmers need to work to be more sustainable, reduce tillage, build organic matter and reduce reliance on fossil fuels? Sure we do, along with everyone else. Not many folks are arguing about these statements."
"If manmade greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change and extreme weather events, then why did we have severe droughts in North America in the 1850s, 1870s, 1890s, 1930s and 1950s, long before the drought of 2012?"
http://farmprogre...ing-3887
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) May 11, 2014
This is what all farmers believe, I suspect:
" farmers will have to adapt to the changes, as we always have, and take great care of the land we are stewards over."
http://farmprogre...ing-3887
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) May 11, 2014
I suspect farmers develop an almost instinctive sense for weather and climate. If they're not worried, I'm not worried.

Go farmers!


Where does that come from, then?
Are they psychic?
yes, as a meteorologist, I have many times wondered at the public's willingness to believe, simple folklore as regards weather (note it would have to be weather as climate is over decades and for a human to take on board changes then because of the natural variations of weather overlying climate - it would need at least 2 whole cycles to be unmasked ... so that's of the order of 60 years).
It's blindingly obvious to me that they would deny a warming word - well in the US anyway, given an unwillingness to read up the science and the quality of it's reporting in the media there..

Obviously farmers aren't as good as you when it comes to being psychic. A meteorologist has "special" psychic powers...
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) May 11, 2014
Farmers are careful observers of weather and climate because their livelihoods depend upon it.
Meteorologists may be careful observers, but their livelihood only depends upon the observation, not the consequence of being correct or not correct year after year.
Maybe weathermen would be more cautious if their jobs depended upon their daily analyses.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) May 11, 2014


Where does that come from, then?
Are they psychic?
yes, as a meteorologist, I have many times wondered at the public's willingness to believe, simple folklore as regards weather (note it would have to be weather as climate is over decades and for a human to take on board changes then because of the natural variations of weather overlying climate - it would need at least 2 whole cycles to be unmasked ... so that's of the order of 60 years).
It's blindingly obvious to me that they would deny a warming word - well in the US anyway, given an unwillingness to read up the science and the quality of it's reporting in the media there..

Obviously farmers aren't as good as you when it comes to being psychic. A meteorologist has "special" psychic powers...

And where do I say that I/meteorologists are psychic?
I/we get stuffed often. As for climate - all that can be forecast is a general trend line of temps, with error bars. The chaos of weather will play out over the top.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) May 11, 2014

Are they psychic?

Obviously farmers aren't as good as you when it comes to being psychic. A meteorologist has "special" psychic powers...

And where do I say that I/meteorologists are psychic?
I/we get stuffed often. As for climate - all that can be forecast is a general trend line of temps, with error bars. The chaos of weather will play out over the top.

LMFAO! It's quite clear, as you repeatedly claim the future is already "settled".
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) May 11, 2014
"One thing Dutton already has won is the sentiment of a country dumbfounded that President Barack Obama last week defined climate change as the most pressing issue facing the country. Obama did so as part of a huge public relations campaign — yes, campaign — that included asking people to pressure Washington to act on the issue.

Not jobs. Not the economy. Not rebuilding our aging infrastructure. Not gang violence, or education.

Climate change.

And he and his party ridiculed anyone who disagrees."

Read more: http://www.realcl...1QHQGOgO
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
Caliban
3.6 / 5 (9) May 11, 2014
"One thing Dutton already has won is the sentiment of a country dumbfounded that President Barack Obama last week defined climate change as the most pressing issue facing the country. Obama did so as part of a huge public relations campaign — yes, campaign — that included asking people to pressure Washington to act on the issue.

Not jobs. Not the economy. Not rebuilding our aging infrastructure. Not gang violence, or education.

Climate change.

And he and his party ridiculed anyone who disagrees."

Read more: http://www.realcl...1QHQGOgO
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter


Climate Change? Gang violence? Joblessness? Crumbling infrastructure?

Of course not.

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) May 11, 2014
as you repeatedly claim the future is already "settled".
@cant think or apparently read either
I have YET to see where this was mentioned by Runrig (or anyone else, other than the continued and oft repeated lie from people with no data, proof or studies backing their claims). please provide links/proof of comment.

Is this going to be a trend? fallacious conjecture stated as fact? You do it on articles regarding cosmology. you do it in comments about modern astrophysicists. you do it about posters in this site...

no wonder you have no credibility
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) May 11, 2014

Are they psychic?

Obviously farmers aren't as good as you when it comes to being psychic. A meteorologist has "special" psychic powers...

And where do I say that I/meteorologists are psychic?
I/we get stuffed often. As for climate - all that can be forecast is a general trend line of temps, with error bars. The chaos of weather will play out over the top.

LMFAO! It's quite clear, as you repeatedly claim the future is already "settled".

You'll have to explain that for me, as I've never "claimed" anything here except my knowledge of Meteorology and that I accept the science behind AGW theory. Beyond that nothing is settled my friend. As I've just said I'm not psychic, and, to get back to my original meaning - neither are farmers.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (12) May 11, 2014
Just a reality check or two:

Multi-national corporations never cared for you or your family, only profits.

If not for the Green Revolution/Movement we'd all be playing in sewage/poisonous pollution (Lead in Petrol, unrestricted dumping of industrial waste in waterways/Aquifers etc) and run out of raw material or paying much more, if not for recycling and pollution control measures demanded by 'Greenies'.

Farmers are most conservative types; and nowadays financially CAPTIVE of Multi-National BANKS, Multi-National CHEMICAL and SEED Corporations. They cannot undertake much RISK to change because they don't have enough return in the INTERIM to pay BANK loans, so many avoid thinking about change even when 'the writing is on the wall' if they don't.

Only reason farmers/pastoralists here finally taking action against FRACKING is because they now see cost/damage to THEM and Environment/water that 'Greenies' warned about long ago.

Denial/Stupidity by Farmers/Business/Politics. Not good. :(
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) May 11, 2014
Hey, Captain Stumpy. Your "internet friend" the ol "Ira-Skippy" just downrated my above post to '1'. Do you see anything in my post deserving of that '1' rating? Do you agree with that BOT rating system Ira uses? Do you see anything wrong with trolling like Uncle Ira is doing AUTOMATICALLY from a programmed LIST with his ratings bot IRRESPECTIVE of post content?

Shall we take that '1' from Uncle Ira as being IN DENIAL of Global Warming SCIENCE and WARNINGS? And that Uncle Ira is AGAINST taking the rational necessary remedies which you and I and all "greenies' have been exploring/recommending all this time?

See what happens when you "friend" a troll/scammer whom you have no idea who he is or what his real agenda is?

Choose your 'friends' more wisely in future, CaptS.

No hard feelings. Good luck, mate. Bye. :)
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (9) May 11, 2014
@ Everybody-Skippys, how you is and where you at? What you think about about a Skippy spends two months calling ol Ira 12 or 10 names every time he comes around. Tells peoples for the 3 or 2 months not should talk to ol Ira. Tells peoples that ol Ira is a machine and a criminal for 3 or 2 months.

Think we should let him be called one the smart science peoples? What? Considering he act like he can't figure out why ol Ira might vote him bad points no matter what he says, I don't think we should let out the the corner and take off the silly looking pointy cap until he can figure an easy one like that, eh?

But on to the matter on the article. Ol Ira is much the dismayed by the way the global warming is going. The people who don't believe in it ain't looking good outside. I remember really good what the Lousianna wetlands and swamps were like when I was 10 or 9 years old. Now I'm 47 years old and I tell you it ain't the same. And it getting worse. And Ira don't like it at all no.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
Farmers are careful observers of weather and climate because their livelihoods depend upon it.
Meteorologists may be careful observers, but their livelihood only depends upon the observation, not the consequence of being correct or not correct year after year.
Maybe weathermen would be more cautious if their jobs depended upon their daily analyses.


Being more connected with nature and the land, it is of no surprise that farmers have a better basic idea of what is going on than someone who never gets off of the pavement. They also are aware of these facts below.

"Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that decade. For an area which only averages less than 20 inches of precipitation a year, deficits like this can make the region resemble a desert. Deficits like this are the equivalent of missing three entire years of expected precipitation in one decade. Figure 2 is a map of the precipitation departures from normal in terms of a percentage of normal (total precipitation divided by normal precipitation) for the Dust Bowl region for 1930 to 1940."
http://www.srh.no...es_today
 
"Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011
In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn't come anywhere close to that this summer."
http://docs.lib.n...0212.pdf

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
You'll have to explain that for me, as I've never "claimed" anything here except my knowledge of Meteorology and that I accept the science behind AGW theory. Beyond that nothing is settled my friend. As I've just said I'm not psychic, and, to get back to my original meaning - neither are farmers.

Yep, and what does the "science" of AGW theory say? Warming is a foregone conclusion...It's settled. Also by claiming anyone who questions this "reality" as being "in denial" you are insisting your conclusions are correct and inevitable. Clearly this suggests you must be psychic to know the future.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 12, 2014
Farmers are most conservative types; and nowadays financially CAPTIVE of Multi-National BANKS, Multi-National CHEMICAL and SEED Corporations
@reality check bounced
not all farmers (or ranchers). I owe nothing to anyone
Hey, Captain Stumpy. Your "internet friend" the ol "Ira-Skippy" just downrated my above post
so? I control no none. so forget about your TROLLING spam posts here. on topic or go away
Warming is a foregone conclusion...It's settled
@cant-think
there is only SCIENCE, and it says that warming is HAPPENING, and states the likely CAUSES based upon empirical data, observation and the scientific method
anyone who questions this "reality" as being "in denial"
wrong again, cant-read. you and benni must party together. it is "anyone who questions empirical data and believes in a faith/philosophy when the data shows otherwise" is a denialist (or stupid, depending on circumstances and how often they've been shown/taught/corrected)
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
You'll have to explain that for me, as I've never "claimed" anything here except my knowledge of Meteorology and that I accept the science behind AGW theory. Beyond that nothing is settled my friend. As I've just said I'm not psychic, and, to get back to my original meaning - neither are farmers.

Yep, and what does the "science" of AGW theory say? Warming is a foregone conclusion...It's settled. Also by claiming anyone who questions this "reality" as being "in denial" you are insisting your conclusions are correct and inevitable. Clearly this suggests you must be psychic to know the future.

You really have to learn the difference between what science can say reliably of AGW/GHG theory (just as Newton's theories can take a lander to Mars - yes the science says that warming is inevitable - and is unarguable), and what "knowing the future" are. In your interpretation anything that quantifies/integrates a process forward in time is akin to being psychic.
FFS
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
@Uncle Ira troll and fraud sockpuppet operator of a downrating bot and 'translation' program for conveting his troll posts to lame "Cajun-speak' which is so stupid it was spotted right away over at Sciforums and they PERMAbanned "Uncle Ira" troll/scammer/fraud immediately. So it's not just me that exposed your 'act', troll. :)
Considering he act like he can't figure out why ol Ira might vote him bad points no matter what he says, I don't think we should let out the the corner and take off the silly looking pointy cap until he can figure an easy one like that, eh?
And what do we call Uncle Ira who operates a ratings bot which downrates IRRESPECTIVE of merits of post content?...that's right:

An "Uncle Ira" scammer FRAUDULENT TROLL sabotaging discussions and other posters irrespective.

That's why I've warned everyone that "Uncle Ira" can't be trusted with your personal info.

Anyone still not wise deserves everything they get when Uncle Ira steals your personal info/identity.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
@Captain S. :)
...not all farmers (or ranchers). I owe nothing to anyone
You are lucky that you are not in the Banks' debt. Most aren't so lucky nowadays, precisely because of the weather extremes brought on by Climate Change which many farmers still in denial about and/or are forced to continue unsustainable practices because they have Bank Debts and can't afford to experiment with changing their practices to allow for global warming effects. They are the ones I am referring to, the 'skeptical of climate change farmers' in the article above.

so? I control no none. so forget about your TROLLING spam posts here. on topic or go away
So you 'friend' and 'converse' and 'encourage tacitly/actively' the "Uncle Ira" scammer and fraud operating a ratings/discussions sabotaging BOT here and who tried it on Sciforums unsuccessfully? Why do you do that still, even after that troll was exposed by me and others for what he is?

Stop making excuses and being a stooge for "Uncle Ira".
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) May 12, 2014
PS: By the way, you lied about me at Sciforums, CaptainS. You said:
...he is flooding phys.org again now because he is mad.


For the record, since 6/5/2014 when I was temp suspended over at sciforums, I made a total of only 20 posts across a total of only 3 threads here.

Hardly "flooding", is it?

And most of those posts were in the interests of warning phys.org members, exposing "Uncle Ira" scammer/saboteur BOT operator; warning against trusting and 'friending' such sociopathic lying scammers to the point of you divulging more personal info than is safe to do on the net to whom you don't really know or what his agenda really is.

So you LIE about that over at sciforums while I am suspended and can't call you out there on your lie. Brave Captn! LOL

Congratulations, mate, you've learned the MO of the lying internet troll and stalker, straight from the "Uncle Ira" MO, which you 'friend ' and excuse at every turn even though he is acting against all science/fairness. Proven! :)
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (9) May 12, 2014
@RealityCheck,

Easy, man-

Remember that this is just a comment forum, and not life or death, and that people rank those comments according to perceived merit or lack thereof.

And yes, many rankings seem to be motivated as a matter of personal animosity, but so what? As I said, it's not life or death.

I'm sure you don't want advice, but, maybe relax a little? You've made some pretty serious allegations regarding some of the posters here, but those are better taken up with the PO moderators.

There is hardly anyone that posts here that isn't regularly downvoted by a few particular users --it just comes with the territory.

Please don't let it get under your skin.

It's much more fun exploding the often jaw-droppingly misinformed, factually incorrect, and ideologically motivated assertions of the many resident trolls.

Along the way, it is also possible to actually say something that makes a difference in the way others perceive or understand a particular issue.

And that is Gold.

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
just as Newton's theories can take a lander to Mars - yes the science says that warming is inevitable - and is unarguable


Newton's theories are falsifiable, not even a decade of missing warming can falsify AGW theories or even put them into the camp of "arguable".
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 12, 2014
@Caliban. :)

Already understood, mate. But it's not about the individual but the principle. If a science site allows such disreputable trolls/scammers (who if they get the trust of naive members and steal info/identity), then the site is in danger of LEGAL implications/suits which they can easily avoid by permabanning all BOT operators and scammers like "Uncle Ira".

It's not about rating, either (you can see that I and most members don't use it), it's about danger of allowing potentially CROOKED admin on 'inside' to exploit site's software/info, cross-access-approvals on network etc. Scope for malicious insider exploitation by CRIMINAL gangs pretending to be 'members' while they go about their nefarious activities is REAL, not imagined. Just ask any Internet security expert and Interpol who deal with such scammers everyday. Crims like people being naive, apathetic or just plain gullible, to make money from phishing/scamming/identitytheft.

Thnx for your well meant advice though! :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
Remember that this is just a comment forum, and not life or death,

I had one 'liberal', Skeptical Heretic, who thought he knew who I was and where I lived and threatened the career of the person he thought I was.
All for simply disagreeing with AGW.
Threats and intimidation are the 'liberal' way of avoiding admitting to the failures of their policies.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
Remember that this is just a comment forum, and not life or death,

I had one 'liberal', Skeptical Heretic, who thought he knew who I was and where I lived and threatened the career of the person he thought I was.
All for simply disagreeing with AGW.
Threats and intimidation are the 'liberal' way of avoiding admitting to the failures of their policies.


Stop whining, you crybaby.

I remember that whole thing quite well. You were exposed as the lying blowhard you are, and have gone through successive user/profile changes since then to try to shake the taint.

That's what you get for making egregiously false claims about yourself.

Dennis Miller told a story about some instruction he received from his father, who said, in perfect noir idiom:

"You know what happens to slack-jawed Rats, don't you son? Sooner or later, a slack-jawed Rat has to suck The Pipe."

I suppose there's still time for you change and avoid the slack-jawed Rat's fate.

Better get at it.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
So you 'friend' and 'converse' and 'encourage tacitly/actively' the "Uncle Ira" scammer and fraud operating a ratings/discussions sabotaging BOT here and who tried it on Sciforums unsuccessfully?
you were banned too, RC
By the way, you lied about me at Sciforums
no I didn't. I've read a snot load of your "posts" here the past few days and no real on-topic posts. it is flooding, spam, trolling and you are basing it on personal conjecture without evidentiary basis, meaning that you are ASSUMING that the people you are talking about are the same, as well as ASSUMING that Ira here is a bot. Without proof (like an IP address, so I can ping and investigate this myself) you are just trolling and spamming.

so I would appreciate it if you leave me alone about it. on topic or go away

no proof means your word is as good s another's, but there IS PROOF you've been banned in sciforums, and that you spam/troll here and are mad at Ira.

FFS - just leave me be, cause ya got nothin
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
20 posts across a total of only 3 threads here
and ALL RANTING about bots, Ira and how we all should BLAH blah BLAHblah blah....
THATS TROLLING
AND SPAMMING
AND WAY TOO MANY STUPID POSTS TO READ WHEN YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE
Hardly "flooding", is it?
you think reading about your spam crap off topic rant is not flooding here? tell it to the admin. I would rather read something pertinent to the article, not your rants. there isn't even SCIENCE in them. and NO PROOF.

your word against Ira's.
you've been proven a troll (see conversations with Q-Star and sciforums, who banned you for trolling) SO... so far, Ira is one up on you. He never lied about being banned, and he does not make excuses about WHY he was banned
GO AWAY
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2014
@CaptS. :)
you were banned too, RC
More self-serving 'convenient' amnesia and denial, mate?

Only temporarily SUSPENDED by CROOKED troll-mod cos I called him out re his abuses of power there.

Whereas "Uncle Ira" spotted as troll/sockpuppet/FRAUD "Cajun-speak" translation-bot-using dishonest, stoopid pretender and obvious stalker.

The HONEST moderator PERMA-banned Uncle Ira's ass.

Remember?
no I didn't.
You're attacking me while 'friending', encouraging/excusing "Uncle Ira" BOT OPERATOR and FRAUD already permabanned at other sites!

Uncle Ira admits downrating IRRESPECTIVE...even my ON-TOPIC post re Farmers etc!

His BOT AUTOMATICALLY downrating within ONE SECOND of a post from someone on BOT's list!

Uncle Ira has NOTHING ON-TOPIC to offer discussions AT ALL except trolling, sabotage etc.

Now you STILL troll & dissemble about me to 'save face' for you naively 'friending' Uncle Ira bot operating troll?

Quit it. Uncle Ira a Troll. Don't trust. Move on, mate :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 13, 2014
@reality check bounced
self-serving 'convenient' amnesia and denial, mate?

THE PROOF
RealityCheck- banned by prometheus 11-27-12 allowed back?Never. reason: Trolling, trolling and yet more trolling
(now for your NEW handle there as a SOCK PUPPET)
Undefined- banned by: Trippy 05-06-14 Allowed back:31 Days 06-06-14, ~10:00 PM 25 Days, 0 Hours REASON: Being insulting & Name-calling, Trolling, and while we're at it off-topic posting.
http://www.scifor...list.php

You haven't changed a bit. above is PROOF. facts. not conjecture. you admitted to being banned before, and now. PROOF. not a "guess" about who might be there.

Now, unless you have something ON TOPIC....
not even a decade of missing warming
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
notice our uncertainty is narrowing
http://biology.du...ge3.html

http://www.livesc...ing.html

http://centerforo...warming/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 13, 2014
That's what you get for making egregiously false claims about yourself.

I never have.
But when SH decided to pry into my Amazon account, I decided to change my user name.
I made a mistake of providing a link to a book on Amazon and SH was able to snoop on my my wish list.

Why do you 'liberals' feel the need to intimidate instead of debating the issue?
SH claimed to live nearby and why would he feel the need to personally contact the person he thought I was?
The only answer I can see is the 'liberals' here don't have a rational point to make and must use force to intimidate anyone who disagrees.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) May 13, 2014
just as Newton's theories can take a lander to Mars - yes the science says that warming is inevitable - and is unarguable


Newton's theories are falsifiable, not even a decade of missing warming can falsify AGW theories or even put them into the camp of "arguable".

Only falsifiable by Einsteinian physics and not necessary to take a lander to Mars.
GHG and therefore AGW science is unarguable. Full stop. Get over it. It's empirical physics.
What IS arguable is the rate of increase in global temps and unfortunately all reconsidered/measured factors indicate that we underestimate that warming.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) May 13, 2014
not even a decade of missing warming

http://earthobser...Warming/
notice our uncertainty is narrowing

I know, I know...The oceans, or ummm...the volcanoes ate my warming. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. The oceanic volcanoes ate my warming.

BTW, there is no doubt the Earth is warming, it has been since the last ice age. The real question here is the AGW effect on warming. Being there has been little to no atmospheric warming while CO2 levels are at the highest ever directly recorded, it pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of those BELIEFS.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 13, 2014
Being there has been little to no atmospheric warming while CO2 levels are at the highest ever directly recorded
@cd cant read either
WTF? really?http://www.acs.or...ing.html
http://www.acs.or...ere.html
http://climate.na...vidence/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/upper-air/2014/3
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/3
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) May 13, 2014
it's becoming more and more the fault of the 'believers' than the 'denialist' as the % of those accepting it as reality grows and yet the consumption of oil continues to increase,... or do you not like math?

That externalities of fossil fuels aren't properly integrated into the dysfunctional modern economic equation, is the fault of those who are fighting to change that equation and include those externality costs? Sure boss, any other thoughts you'd like to tank?


How is it possible to quantify and factor in "AGW externalities costs" into the modern economic equation? Carbon credit seems artificial and arbitrary and not based on any substantive cause/effect.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) May 13, 2014
not even a decade of missing warming

http://earthobser...Warming/
notice our uncertainty is narrowing

I know, I know...The oceans, or ummm...the volcanoes ate my warming. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. The oceanic volcanoes ate my warming.

BTW, there is no doubt the Earth is warming, it has been since the last ice age. The real question here is the AGW effect on warming. Being there has been little to no atmospheric warming while CO2 levels are at the highest ever directly recorded, it pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of those BELIEFS.

canty baby...
You said it in there - "atmospheric warming".
Now in any system that has a ~10% vs ~90% partition, is it really reasonable to only look at the 10 and ignore the 90? Unless of course you have reason to do so?
Also, you are aware of the atmospheric effect of a -ve ENSO/PDO phase?
You are aware of the warming (no not temp, but energy equivalent) of the deep ocean?
FFS
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (11) May 13, 2014

Why do you 'liberals' feel the need to intimidate instead of debating the issue?
[...] I can see is the 'liberals' here don't have a rational point to make and must use force to intimidate anyone who disagrees.


You are a crack-up.

IF you were to ever engage in rational debate, then perhaps you would be approached with more respect.

But since you virtually always only indulge in off-topic quote-mining, evasion, distortion, wilful disunderstanding, and the adamant and inflexible promulgation of your own particular LibertaRandite worldview with complete and utter disregard for facts or science and have claimed expertise that you do not possess, then you can only rightly expect to be regarded as what you incontrovertibly are:

A spotty-bottomed troll.

You can either accept this, or work diligently to transform yourself into a recogniseably rational, open-minded person who follows the facts to their conclusion, instead of distorting them to support your ideological bias.
Dr_toad
May 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) May 13, 2014
@CaptS. :) Mate, give it up and move on, you are being 'selective' in your evidence presentation. I already explained to Q-S and you before that the crooked troll-mod gangmembers prometheus and Tach colluded to frame and ban RealityCheck. They were exposed and proven to have colluded against all science and fairplay principles, so I was let back into sciforum as Undefined by Admin. prometheus is no longer active there since, and Tach has been permabanned. More recently, the another troll-mod gangmember has been abusing his power there, Trippy, and whenever I call him out on it he suspends me and lets his troll 'mates' off who start the 'framing' trolling and baiting and sabotaging.

Listen, mate, it's NOW about "Uncle Ira" who is PROVEN to use a ratings BOT that downrates automatically from a LIST irrespective of post content. That is as ANTI-science and ANTI-fairness as it gets, and its operator is gulling YOU and others as practice for what he is doing elsewhere. Do't fall for it. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) May 13, 2014
@Captain Stumpy. :) Move on, you're getting emotionally fixated with me. Don't trust proven bot-operating Uncle Ira! :)

FYI, prometheus crooked troll-mod colluded with troll Tach to frame/ban victims. Tach since permbanned from sciforums and prometheus hasn't been active since he was disgraced by proof-by-experiment of his abuses. More lately crooked troll-mod Trippy has been abusing his power there for personal prejudicial reasons and letting his troll 'mates' get away with baiting and framing while he bans their/his victims.

Whenever I call troll-mod Trippy out on his abuses he suspends me on trumped up charges. Surprise! surprise! What do you expect?

It's like you going to the Taliban for 'proof' and 'truth' against the innocent victims who oppose them and want democracy instead of crazy AlQueda gangs running things.

I posted on-topic things before. Now I am mostly withdrawn from forum posting, remember?

I post lately mostly because you keep posting to/about me. Bye, Capt.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 13, 2014
OOPS...the first post disappeared when 'submitted', so I rewrote another quickly to replace it. But seems a 'hiccough' in the system just delayed displaying the previous post for a few minutes before displaying. Oh well, never mind.

Hopefully this will be the end of this one, Capt? So I can withdraw again. Now I have warned against the bot operator, I have no reason to post again anytime soon unless it proves necessary in the interests of science and fair play.

Good luck in your discussions in the future, Captain Stumpy, everyone! No hard feelings. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 13, 2014
the previous post disappeared when 'submitted'
learn to F5 or refresh
No hard feelings
no ON TOPIC either.
ya want to converse, e-mail me and quit being stupid on here wasting time

AND STOP SPAMMING AND TROLLING
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) May 13, 2014
@Captain Stumpy. :)
I posted on-topic, here and in 'western antarctic glacier loss' thread. Your 'friend' Uncle Ira's BOT downvoted in less than two seconds in both cases IRRESPECTIVE of content. You ignore the elephant in the room but continue to pick on irrelevancies.

Is it "being stupid" when people speak up against crooks and scammers and frauds in your world?

No more 'behind closed doors'. That is how troll-mod gangs operated in the past; colluded via PMs. Tach and prometheus eventually admitted exchanging PMs for their collusion!

Instead of trying to make this about me, remember the reason this exchange started:

You attacked when I urged caution re CMB/BICEPS papers 'claims'. Mainstreamers soon also questioned 'claims' when it became obvious that flawed signal processing/assumptions and 'cleaning' artifacts were likely due 'mixmaster' of signals/sources across vast space/processes. You and your 'friend' Uncle Ira the bot operator kept trolling/attacking. I defended.

Bye:-)
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (9) May 13, 2014
You know, this is off topic from what the discussion has become; but did anyone notice that only 4 states were surveyed and all of them are Red states. Vt, Tx, La, NC. And since republican, GOP, tea party, freedom fighter, or whatever they want to call themselves today, are all solidly denying the science of climate change, do you think there could be some bias in the survey? If the survey extended to CA, this might have been a whole nother story.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) May 13, 2014
Now in any system that has a ~10% vs ~90% partition, is it really reasonable to only look at the 10 and ignore the 90?

No, but the models created by the "science" of AGW predicted continuous warming with no let up.

(no not temp, but energy equivalent) of the deep ocean.

Carbon-ation?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
No, but the models created by the "science" of AGW predicted continuous warming with no let up.
No, they didn't.

Carbon-ation?
Acidification.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
You know, this is off topic from what the discussion has become; but did anyone notice that only 4 states were surveyed and all of them are Red states. Vt, Tx, La, NC. And since republican, GOP, tea party, freedom fighter, or whatever they want to call themselves today, are all solidly denying the science of climate change, do you think there could be some bias in the survey? If the survey extended to CA, this might have been a whole nother story.
That's a good catch howhot. The headline should read something along the lines of :"American farmers in four of the most conservative, bible-belt states in the United States are unsurprisingly not convinced of climate change" or something similar. Those states are definately not representative of "all American farmers" and is as much a distortion of the facts as much of the denialism in this "no longer a debate".
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
Vermont is a red state? They elected a socialist senator.
NC is on the cusp as they have been inundated with illegal aliens.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 14, 2014
Vermont is a red state? They elected a socialist senator.
NC is on the cusp as they have been inundated with illegal aliens.


Let's see, the article says:
The study polled 1,300 farmers from four agricultural states – North Carolina, Mississippi, Texas and Wisconsin
So what has Vermont got to do with this conversation?

Tell me Mr Rabid Anti-everything, do you even bother to try to read the article you are posting to, before you post your delusional anarchist lies?

That's a rhetorical question, even if you did you would still not understand and twist it to meet your delusional view of the world.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
"You know, this is off topic from what the discussion has become; but did anyone notice that only 4 states were surveyed and all of them are Red states. Vt, Tx, La, NC."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"
Ask hottie why he thinks Vermont is a red state.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2014
Ask hottie why he thinks Vermont is a red state.
I have a better question, Why do you think that your delusional anarchism and obfuscation are of interest to any beyond a small subset of a small group of conservative tea-partiers?

"hottie" obviously misread the article or made a typo. You, on the other hand, continue to promote your ignorance and misdirection even after your duplicity was pointed out to you!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2014
Why do so many here, Mangy, hottie, stumpy .... all support and defend socialism?

Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2014
Why do so many here, Mangy, hottie, stumpy .... all support and defend socialism?

I don't loon, you're just too caught up in denialism, conspiratism and anarchy to see that.
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
Why do so many here, Mangy, hottie, stumpy .... all support and defend socialism?
Just because some one doesn't worship your god Ayn Rand means they're supporting and defending socialism.

Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) May 14, 2014
.... only 4 states were surveyed and all of them are Red states. [MS, NC, TX, WI]. And since republican, GOP, tea party, freedom fighter, or whatever they want to call themselves today, are all solidly denying the science of climate change, do you think there could be some bias in the survey?


According to this poll, 25% of Republicans consider global climate change, "a MAJOR threat".

Even though this number is way higher than your evident bias against the right would have let you suppose,... by choosing to pivot the analysis on the phrase "A MAJOR THREAT", one then can leverage the bias between the two parties to make the Right seems anti-science.

Why? Because government centered solutions are more in-line with the bias of the political left, they are more susceptible to being influenced by Alarmism,.. which necessitates "Now" action.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
Even though this number is way higher than your evident bias against the right would have let you suppose,... by choosing to pivot the analysis on the phrase "A MAJOR THREAT", one then can leverage the bias between the two parties to make the Right seems anti-science.

Why? Because government centered solutions are more in-line with the bias of the political left, they are more susceptible to being influenced by Alarmism,.. which necessitates "Now" action.
An interesting take. Your criticism of the wording of the question may have merit, but precludes the possibility of a lesser category then "major threat" (such as minor threat, or major concern). Your link does not show the actual survey questions.

Interesting you posit a bias against the right. The far right perhaps, and certainly the right of far right represented by the loon.

As for your reasoning of "Alarmism", that's just anarchist propaganda and unworthy of response.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
French Foreign Minister: 'We Have 500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos'.

Why are socialist politicians drooling over AGW Alarmism?

As for your reasoning of "Alarmism", that's just anarchist propaganda and unworthy of response.


It is propaganda that you were evidently spoon fed that associates conservatives with anarchists. In fact the far right advocates government as much as the left,... the difference is just in where the focus is,... protection of property rights vrs nanny state.

A more diluted category would obviously have increase the % for the republicans, .....that was the point.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
stumpy .... all support and defend socialism
@rygg the crackhead
I dont. I served to fight against it, because I grew up in the cold war living overseas seeing first had what it is like, YOU are the only idiot here supporting it, as well as calling others supporters of it, ya moron!
you really need to get back on your meds
I posted
stopped here. TL;DR
too stupid and off topic rant.
but did anyone notice that only 4 states were surveyed and all of them are Red states
@Howhot
interesting... wonder what would happen if they opened it up to all states?
bible-belt states in the United States are unsurprisingly not convinced of climate change
@Maggnus
hey now! not all bible belt states are that stupid! LOL
I know at least TWO that are working hard against this climate change issue, and have been since the 90's :-)
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) May 14, 2014
Your link does not show the actual survey questions.


Of course not, it was published by the liberal bias nytimes. The entire political aspect of AGW is dripping with bias to begin with. That was the point. So claiming bias for things that are counter to your bias, is like monkeys flinging shit at each other.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
Why do so many here, Mangy, hottie, stumpy .... all support and defend socialism?

I don't loon, you're just too caught up in denialism, conspiratism and anarchy to see that.

No, I it's because you support socialist policies and act just like a socialist when confronted.

I served to fight against it

You are NOT opposing socialism now, and act just like a socialist when confronted.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
French Foreign Minister: 'We Have http://cnsnews.co...te-chaos to Avoid Climate Chaos'.

Why are socialist politicians drooling over AGW Alarmism?
An extreme view utterly devoid of evidence, and a misrepresentation of what the Minister said. More propaganda, and not worthy of response.

It is propaganda that you were evidently spoon fed that associates conservatives with anarchists. In fact the far right advocates government as much as the left,... the difference is just in where the focus is,... protection of property rights vrs nanny state.
I have made no such association, and your argument is the fallacy of the excluded middle (false dilemma)

A more diluted category would obviously have increase the % for the republicans, .....that was the point.
You don't know that.

@stumpy - my apologies!
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
Your link does not show the actual survey questions.


Of course not, it was published by the liberal bias nytimes. The entire political aspect of AGW is dripping with bias to begin with. That was the point. So claiming bias for things that are counter to your bias, is like monkeys flinging shit at each other.
Trying to look at it from your extreme and extremely biased point of view, you no doubt think there is a point to your rant. The thing is, except for showing off your confirmation bias, you have made no point.

That's the problem with the extreme right and anarchists. Your too caught up in your political propaganda to see beyond it.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) May 14, 2014
Why do so many here, Mangy, hottie, stumpy .... all support and defend socialism?

I don't loon, you're just too caught up in denialism, conspiratism and anarchy to see that.

No, I it's because you support socialist policies and act just like a socialist when confronted.

I served to fight against it

You are NOT opposing socialism now, and act just like a socialist when confronted.


EVERYTHING is socialism to you loon! Everything! You have no idea because you are so blinded by your prejudice. You are a tiny, pitiful little anarchist troll wasting your time on a science site because you have no where else to go! You are a loon!
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) May 14, 2014
Socialism is state control of private property, like the EPA shutting down coal plants over science they can't support or creating pollution laws using non-existent data.
Mangy, stumpy respond like Pavlov's dogs following the 'rules for radicals' tactics of intimidation and confrontation.

Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) May 14, 2014
Socialism is state control of private property, like the EPA shutting down coal plants over science they can't support or creating pollution laws using non-existent data.
Mangy, stumpy respond like Pavlov's dogs following the 'rules for radicals' tactics of intimidation and confrontation.
Oh boo-hoo! Your simplified,extreme little world can't account for complexities of economics, science or government, and so you withdraw into a cocoon of simplistic "us or them" scenarios while belittling the efforts of those who can perceive beyond your made up conspiratorial fantasy world.

I respond to your garbage and hubris in the same manner as I would an actual socialist - something you wouldn't recognize if you tripped over it! Your empty logic and biased, extreme views are worthless and do not belong on a site dedicated to science.

Why don't you quote mine comments on paranoid schizophrenic personality disorder. AT least that's something you might gain from.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
Your empty logic and biased, extreme views are worthless and do not belong on a site dedicated to science.


Even less so, your vacuous responses.

A more diluted category would obviously have increase the % for the republicans, .....that was the point.

You don't know that.


Are you suggesting that there is a possibility that a greater % of republicans think AGW is a "Major threat" than think AGW is a "Minor threat",... or do you hate logic?

EVERYTHING is socialism to you loon! Everything! You have no idea because you are so blinded by your prejudice.


If you don't know anything about politics, why are you feigning responses?

You've referred to my posts as 'anarchist' twice. You seem to be a name caller, not one who is mature enough to discuss a topic rationally.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) May 14, 2014

Even less so, your vacuous responses.
Aww look at you, all jumping up to defend the downtrodden! Bet you feel all proud of yourself, being a goodl socialist and all that!

Are you suggesting that there is a possibility that a greater % of republicans think AGW is a "Major threat" than think AGW is a "Minor threat",... or do you hate logic?
No dumdum, I am suggesting that you don't know that the authors of the survey were trying to make any "point". That's called "being biased"! Hey, isn't that a form of socialism - biased sampling?

If you don't know anything about politics, why are you feigning responses?
That's the best you could come up with? Feigning responses?

You've referred to my posts as 'anarchist' twice. You seem to be a name caller, not one who is mature enough to discuss a topic rationally.
You referred to my posts as socialist 3 times. Hypocrite much? You call discussing science based on your dislike for some stupid politician "mature"?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
Mangy, stumpy respond like Pavlov's dogs following the 'rules for radicals' tactics of intimidation and confrontation
Intimidation? over the internet? what, did I threaten to text you to death?
1- if you are "intimidated" I suggest you leave, as likely you are he type that would not fare well in a physical confrontation
2- I don't need to intimidate you as you're an irrelevant simpering troll here to piss people off with backtalk and BS because you have NO scientific support in your corner. NONE
you are the insignificant gnat irritating everyone

I WILL, however, point out your fallacies though when I see fit. But I don't like picking on the mentally disabled, so I will not do I often. (I cant always tell if you are mental or just really stupid)

@Maggnus
he is NOT an anarchist, as an anarchist still has a personal set of morals that they live by.
he is a contrarian, which lives only to deny everything even in the face of empirical data.
just ignore the pest. :-)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2014
Your simplified,extreme little world can't account for complexities of economics, science or government


Socialists believe they can disregard the complexities of human actions and use violence or the threat of violence to obtain the social order they desire.
When the result is MORE disorder, socialists may squeeze harder, use more violence, blame others, but they NEVER will acknowledge that failure is fundamental to their system and its failure to account for complex emergent systems.
AGWism fails for for the same reason; their simplification of a complex emergent system and the use of violence to 'fix' AGWism.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) May 14, 2014
You've referred to my posts as 'anarchist' twice. You seem to be a name caller, not one who is mature enough to discuss a topic rationally.

You referred to my posts as socialist 3 times.


Where?
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
Socialists believe they can disregard the complexities of human actions and use violence or the threat of violence to obtain the social order they desire.
When the result is MORE disorder, socialists may squeeze harder, use more violence, blame others, but they NEVER will acknowledge that failure is fundamental to their system and its failure to account for complex emergent systems.
AGWism fails for for the same reason; their simplification of a complex emergent system and the use of violence to 'fix' AGWism.
Yep, retreats into cries of persecution, levels unsupportable accusations of some "them" threatening a "social order" of some kind, then retreats further into delusion and political grandstanding. Loon!

You're wrong stumpy, he is not a contrarion. Nor is he an anarchist. He's a lunatic fringe dweller. A loon!
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (7) May 14, 2014
I have withdrawn from lengthy discussing here, so I will just make this brief observation for the sake of science, humanity and fair play:

@ryggesogn2. :) Please do read/learn from the history of evolution of political/governance systems to date. You will see that no political/governance system can be 'perfect' when involving disparate population/ideologies and aspirations etc. But see that if not for some form of secular, democratically semi-socialized form of govt systems/institutions, you and I would probably still be 'serfs', slaves and 'chattels' of "divine Right' Kings/Popes/Mullahs religious crazys/crims, or war-pawns of such War-Lords and Tyrants which exist even today...all of which effectively have TOTAL CONTROL over not only your property and possessions, but your PERSON and the person of your children as well!

MODERN democratic, semi-socialized govts/institutions not 'perfect', but 'the best of a bad lot'. They only control some things: safety/health/economy [continued]..
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) May 14, 2014
@ryggesogn2 [continued]..

../national security etc. If they did not, you would have no control over what's in your food or medicine at all. Remember when Mercury and Lead and Uranium, Benzine etc etc were in everyday 'consumer items/medicines'? If Govt didn't mandate/ban/control over such things and many others I could list, then we would still be being poisoned even more than we are now! And Monopolies in 'pure Capitalist' or Pure Communist' (and other extreme systems), would have effective total control over you and family than any democratic, semi-socialist system ever could. So be reasonable, ryggesogn2, and end your unbalanced/uninformed 'tirade' against 'socialism' unless you actually understand that the MODERN form of socialism is inevitable and must exist to keep you and your family safe from all the other 'extreme alternatives' and their total control which you decry but modern rational, democratic semi-socialist systems can never have to anywhere near same degree. :)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) May 14, 2014
PS: @ryggesogn2. Speaking of surveys and religious fundamentalist mentalities and AGW deniers etc., I would have put just 2 questions in a survey of just those identifying them selves as Fundamentalist Christian bible believers and (Mad Hatter's) Tea Party members or political sympathizers:

1) Do you believe OR disbelieve that the 'global' catastrophe of Biblical Flood could happen?

2) Do you believe OR disbelieve that man's activities could ever induce a 'global' Climate Change catastrophe?

Please give your reasons for your belief OR disbelief in your answers for 1 and 2 above.

The results would a be very interesting study in self-serving religious/political rationalizations if nothing else!

Anyhow, back to read-only mode again for me....unless something else catches my eye like this one did!

Cheers and Bye for now, ryggesogn2, everyone. :)
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
If they did not, you would have no control over what's in your food or medicine at all.

Yes, I would.
MODERN form of socialism is inevitable

With its inevitable failures, which I continue to point out.

Your assertion that socialism is necessary is just an assertion.
The great 'progressive' experiment that began in the US 100 years ago failing.

I don't buy your assertion that we would be slaves or serfs either. The liberty that began with the Reformation and subsequently protected by the US Constitution enabled an explosion of individual liberty and prosperity that threatens the 'elites' power.
When a poor immigrant like Andrew Carnegie can leave his home and become one of the wealthiest individuals in the world is a threat the 'progressives' couldn't tolerate.
I do support Bastiat's description of The Law in that the purpose of the state is to prevent injustice and not plunder anyone.
Fascism is now the norm with the state controlling 'private' property.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) May 14, 2014
So be reasonable,

Why won't you socialists be reasonable and support a state with limited power? Power to only protect private property?
Why?
Because ultimately the socialists is envious and craves the power to control others.
"Italy, where I lived for two or three years off and on… There's a wonderful joke I've heard which is about the Greens. They say the Greens are like tomatoes: they begin the summer green but by the end of July they're red, and that means that typically the Green impulse – whatever its good intentions and good sentiments are – ends up in creating more and bigger government and intrusive government trying to manage peoples' affairs. It ends up being socialist. It's socialism by another root.""
http://www.forbes...he-rich/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
The essence of socialism:

"There were three Europeans, caught by a cannibal king, who were going to be boiled in oil on a following Wednesday, but over the weekend he allowed each of them to live out their wishes [or] fantasies. So, the Frenchman wished for a weekend in Paris with his mistress, no questions asked and no promises made. The Englishman wished for a couple of afternoons to walk through the fields of Oxfordshire with his colleague, reciting Keats and Shelley. And the Russian wished that his neighbor's barn would burn down." You're only happy when you bring everybody down to your level, and I think that's a lot of what's going on now. "
http://www.forbes...he-rich/

Socialists are only happy by tearing others down.

Scandinavians have a version called Jante's Law.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
The SSA at work:
"Immigration officials knowingly released dozens of murderers and thousands of drunken drivers back into the U.S. in 2013, according to Obama administration statistics that could undercut the president's argument that he is trying to focus on the most serious criminals in his immigration enforcement.

Read more: http://www.washin...1jeR4ucM
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

And all the 'reasonable' people want to reward those who violated the law to be citizens.
But, they will be surprised as they will be citizens of a country that will become the corrupt hell hole they ran from.
'Liberals'/socialists/'progressives' are like locusts.
Even Aesop understood the locust in the fable of the Ant and Grasshopper.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
"You can make a case that the difference between the Republican and Democratic politics of wealth lie in the difference between who tends to make up "the wealthy" in their districts. The rich of America's affluent urban areas tend to be the beneficiaries, one way or another, of a global tournament economy in which markets are often close to "winner take all," and vast sums can flow to people who are just a little bit better than their competitors. The wealthy in Republican districts, on the other hand, are more likely to be competing in local or national markets, not glamour industries, where sales are ground out one at a time. "
http://www.bloomb...emocrats
So its the democrat/socialsts districts that more closely resemble serfdom.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) May 14, 2014
I was about to log out when I saw your responses, ryggesogn2. Mate, what's the matter with you? Don't you realize the FULL implications of what you are saying? How can you have control over anything IF EXTREME and UNFETTERED MONOPOLISTIC CAPITALISTS/COMMUNISTS effectively control resources, money supply and what you can or cannot 'buy/access' in the market/supermarket? Are you personally going to retreat to the hinterlands and become a subsistence farmer? That would be the only way you could 'escape' monopolist control over everything. That's a dead-end state for you and family and society, as it was in ancient times. Which is why society changed and progressed to modern, secular, reasonable, semi-socialist democracy system....because all other 'extremes' at each end of the 'systems spectrum' failed tragically because they were stagnant and/or unsustainable, benefitting only those in total control.

Be reasonable. End your emotional/political tirades; start learning from history. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
UNFETTERED MONOPOLISTIC CAPITALISTS/COMMUNISTS


NO SUCH THING as 'unfettered'.

Why must you use fiction to support your defense of socialism?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
Here is telling question of the socialist:

"How can you have control over anything"

I can choose NOT buy it.

If I want someone to buy what I am selling I must persuade them. I must offer them something they value more than what they are willing to trade for. And I must value what they have to trade if I would make the trade.
Hence the invention of money which facilities that trade.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) May 14, 2014
"The IRS' Washington, D.C. headquarters targeted conservative groups in part due to pressure from Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, according to emails obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch and reviewed by The Daily Caller."

Read more: http://dailycalle...1jmh5LNs

How do you stop this unfettered state power?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
Where is the control? Where is the rule of law?

"Sex Offenders Flood over Border"
"ICE Ordered to Stay Silent on Release of 36,000 Criminal Illegal Immigrants"
"Planned Parenthood Covers Up Rapes"
http://www.breitbart.com/
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
Where is the control? Where is the rule of law?

"Sex Offenders Flood over Border"
"ICE Ordered to Stay Silent on Release of 36,000 Criminal Illegal Immigrants"
"Planned Parenthood Covers Up Rapes"
http://www.breitbart.com/


Rygg: Just take a deep breath, tighten your tinfoil hat, double the dose of your anti-psychotic, and take a running leap off the nearest tall building (or if you can't find a tall building, please find an adequately high cliff). "They" really are out to get you...
RealityCheck
3.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2014
@ryggesogn2. :) Briefly...
"How can you have control over anything"

I can choose NOT buy it.

Do you understand what 'Monopoly power/position' means in reality? What entrenched RANGE of unfettered Monopolies would mean in reality?

You'd have NO choice BUT to buy! As they would be the ONLY SUPPLIERS in a monopolized "market".

If monopolies extended to all 'life necessity' commodities (food, medicine, fuel, power, transport, roads, medicines, finance etc etc), then you are being totally controlled....with NO OPTION of 'not buy' or 'not be controlled' thus.

To avoid control by unfettered communist/capitalist/tyrant/feudal etc monopolies-by-those-in-total-control, you 'escape' to hinterlands, become self-reliant subsistence farmer?

If everyone did that, and abandon cities, then hinterlands would be pretty crowded and conflicts frequent. New socialized political/police/economy system would arise! History repeats/defaults to modern democratic semi-social system! Naturally. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 15, 2014
Where is the control? Where is the rule of law?
rygg, anyone who does not like big gov't is socialist or whatever in your eyes, but anyone who likes restrictions from the gov't is also socialist. Ya cant have it both ways, dipshite
here you are talking about the "rule of law" which REQUIRES restrictions, law, gov't and AUTHORITY over people, which is socialist in your eyes, but also is common whenever you get people together en mass, as it is the easiest way to govern them/control them. this is your basic structure of gov't, which is also built into social animals like humans. there will be leaders, and followers (and apparently whiny contrarians like you).
Specify exactly what you mean and take a stand on one part. dont keep playing the field and calling EVERYTHING socialist, because it only shows you to be an uneducated idiot

you really should heed thermodynamics advice... and get on some meds
swimming with rocks is good too, or an anchor...
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (8) May 15, 2014
rygg, anyone who does not like big gov't is socialist or whatever in your eyes


I doubt that he has said this. Perhaps it's your misunderstanding or you misspoke, because the opposite is likely the case.

'Socialist' is a well defined political concept, and as I said above, being anti-socialist does NOT simply mean being anti-government.

I'm a free market guy because the evidence shows that this is the best means for human progress,... not government central planning. However, this does not mean that I am anti-government. That is leftist propaganda designed to marginalize conservatives/libertarians.

you are talking about the "rule of law" which REQUIRES restrictions


Correct, and as a free-market capitalist guy, I advocate strong government for the protection of property rights, natural rights, and the judicial system, as vital for a valid capitalistic system to even exist. There is no contradiction if you understand what socialism is.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
Do you understand what 'Monopoly power/position' means in reality?

It means a business is being protected by the state from competition.

If monopolies extended to all 'life necessity' commodities

Big if. Stop building straw men.
Monopolies can't happen without state violence.

"rule of law" which REQUIRES restrictions, l

Depends upon the law.
If that law is a just law, it's only purpose is to protect the property rights of everyone.
No law can restrict anyone from murder or theft, but the law can be used to punish those who do.
'Positive' laws, those made by central planners to control the lives of other people, like banning Big Gulps, weaken the rule of law.
When immigration laws are selectively enforced, if at all, rule of law is weakened.
Anyone care to bet that the Democrat congressman from MI who violated the law to get on the primary ballot will somehow be on the ballot?
Some are more 'equal' under the law than others?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
anyone who does not like big gov't is socialist


Socialists need a big intrusive, powerful state to Control the Lives of Others.
A big govt is needed for a regulatory state to plunder more wealth and destroy the lives of others while enriching those who suck up to the state.

cant have it both ways,

Can't have what both ways?
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"
Deriving JUST power from the CONSENT of the governed.
That means the power of the state was supposed to limited to the power on loan from the people.
The 'progressive' sate is now usurping and destroying individual rights, not protecting them.
Stump wants to just bend over and take it, BOHICA.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 15, 2014
"Comcast enjoys monopoly access to most homes it services. Each year, it raises rates for cable TV bundled with high-speed Internet faster than the rate of inflation, because federal policies prohibit local governments from regulating cable prices as they do for electric and water utilities."
http://www.terrad...999.html

The story continues to support more govt regulations to control the industry.

But this is all the fault of local govts in the first place GRANTING cable companies monopolies.
Until DirecTV, there no cable TV competition and while consumers want to pay for what they watch, laws limit ala-carte pricing.
All this is the direct result of a socialist regulatory state and the solution of the socialist regulatory state is a bigger, more powerful socialist regulatory state.

Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) May 15, 2014
I doubt that he has said this. Perhaps it's your misunderstanding or you misspoke, because the opposite is likely the case
@Noumenon
nope. didn't misspeak... In a thread about 6-8 months ago I specifically commented about my distaste for big gov't when ryggy interpreted that is being socialist. when I dig up the comment, I will share it. it was on my old dead laptop, so it will require me searching thru phys.org articles... time consuming.
Can't have what both ways?
@rygg
your definition of socialist you idiot.
don't you remember calling an anarchist a socialist?
name calling is easy on the internet, especially to an idiot with no education (except maybe high school) and a poli-sci bent with conspiracy theorist stamped all over your tin-foil hat... but reality does not go away.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 15, 2014
specifically commented about my distaste for big gov't

Actions speak louder than words.
don't you remember calling an anarchist a socialist?

Nope.
The literal interpretation, and the one I prefer, for anarchy is 'no government'. Socialists like to trot out the term to mean chaos to justify their existence.
The world exist in anarchy. There is no world govt.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
name calling is easy on the internet, especially to an idiot with no education


Seems that way,....

rygg the crackhead.... idiot... ya moron... get back on your meds... too stupid..... you are the insignificant gnat .... mentally disabled.... mental or just really stupid .... dipshite... uneducated idiot... get on some meds... swimming with rocks...[and my favorite...] "name calling is easy on the internet, especially to an idiot with no education " -CaptainStumpy


Bait much stupid... your delusions and irrational paranoia.... delusional anarchist lies... You are a tiny, pitiful little anarchist troll... You are a loon!.... paranoid schizophrenic personality disorder ... dumdum... Loon! - Maggnus


....
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
.....

his escalating brain damage... Evil is as evil does.... crafted by sociopaths
- PinkElephant


Your arrogance and stupidity ...Moron....your type of moron... Moron.... rygsuckn'... Moron... Moron.... you crybaby... lying blowhard... A spotty-bottomed troll..- Caliban


dose of your anti-psychotic.... leap off the nearest tall building..- thermodynamics


As a great band once said,....'quick to anger, ...slow to understand'.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) May 15, 2014
name calling is easy on the internet, especially to an idiot with no education


Seems that way,....
@Noumenon
I despise blatant stupidity. especially in the light of facts. not ignorance, for ignorance can be changed. stupidity.
As a great band once said,....'quick to anger, ...slow to understand'.
and an old captain once told me "there aint nothing worse than stupid, especially when you prove something and stupid says -nu-uh. I don't believe it"
Nope.
@Rygg
I knew you would say that. that's why I am going through all the old threads. I will find it eventually
I got nothin' but time.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2014
especially in the light of facts

Why continue to support AGW socialism if you despise socialism?
prove something

Why do you believe AGWism has been proven?
'Scientists' like runny and timmy say so?
Many real climate scientists do not support AGWism. Why does Stump? They have empirical data that Stump craves, but ignores. Why?
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
[q
Correct, and as a free-market capitalist guy, I advocate strong government for the protection of property rights, natural rights, and the judicial system, as vital for a valid capitalistic system to even exist. There is no contradiction if you understand what socialism is.


And yet you are unable and/or unwilling to understand that that the two(as ideally defined) do not exist in nature, nor can they, without degenerating into chaos.

The cold, hard, truth is that they are complimentary parts of a functioning "democracy", as the needs of the few must be balanced against the many.

And this is the essential bit of understanding that you, ryg, frei, et al steadfastly refuse to acknowledge, much less incorporate, into your conceptualizations of perfect freemarket capitalist utopia.

In another world, this could be considered an appeal to your better nature.

Unfortunately, it's actually a Dx of your collective Sociopathy.

Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2014
.....

his escalating brain damage... Evil is as evil does.... crafted by sociopaths
- PinkElephant


Your arrogance and stupidity ...Moron....your type of moron... Moron.... rygsuckn'... Moron... Moron.... you crybaby... lying blowhard... A spotty-bottomed troll..- Caliban


dose of your anti-psychotic.... leap off the nearest tall building..- thermodynamics


As a great band once said,....'quick to anger, ...slow to understand'.


Wrong you are again, nonoUnme--

The anger arose after long, repeated, chronic exposure to the inflexible and unwavering ideological fixation, amorality, and chicanery of you and yours.

This familiarity with you and yours has, inevitably, bred the proverbial contempt with which you and yours are regarded.

Why don't you see if you(and also yours) can find some "Great Band" lyric which expresses that little conundrum, yes?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2014
without degenerating into chaos.

The 'chaos' dog whistle to promote socialism.
the two(as ideally defined) do not exist in nature

The two ....what?
perfect freemarket capitalist utopia.

Oxymoronic. No free market capitalist believes in Utopia. That is a socialist fantasy.

Once again, stumpy really doesn't support liberty, free markets and limited govt.

Bastiat described the limits of good govt in The Law. He said in the 1840s the main flaw with the US was its failure to protect the lives and liberty of blacks. He was correct and that flaw has led the US down the path of more socialist tyranny.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) May 15, 2014


Bastiat described the limits of good govt in The Law. He said in the 1840s the main flaw with the US was its failure to protect the lives and liberty of blacks. He was correct and that flaw has led the US down the path of more socialist tyranny.


A perfect example of your conflationist chicanery, and the lengths to which you are willing to travel to justify your sociopathy.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2014


Bastiat described the limits of good govt in The Law. He said in the 1840s the main flaw with the US was its failure to protect the lives and liberty of blacks. He was correct and that flaw has led the US down the path of more socialist tyranny.


A perfect example of your conflationist chicanery, and the lengths to which you are willing to travel to justify your sociopathy.


Cali supports slavery?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2014
"So according to the Obama administration, intolerant governments somehow foster toleration among schoolchildren. The Romeikes lost their 2013 asylum appeal, and last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their case. Just one day later, the Department of Homeland Security suddenly reversed its opposition and informed the Romeikes they could remain in the United States indefinitely.

The DHS' change of heart is welcome news for the Romeikes. For the nation, this family's saga serves as refresher course on the true origins of our fundamental rights.

Read more: http://dailycalle...1pkO7ce1
It's great the Romeikes can stay in the US. After all, DHS doesn't care if millions of illegal aliens are in in the US.
What is troubling is the arbitrary nature of the decision.
This is not rule of law.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
Why do you believe AGWism
1st-I prescribe to no political hack BS like you do. 2nd- I believe in the SCIENCE, the EMPIRICAL data: which you've never produced
Tell me something ryggy... why do you fear and disdain science? why do hate those who understand the physics? what is it that you dislike? their ability, or your lack thereof?
is this simply a matter of personal animosity lashing out at others who are more capable? Thermo & furlong are far better at linear algebra than I am, and I accept it, but I dont hate them. I admire their abilities. Runrig, Thompson, Maggnus, Pink, and more have singular abilities that I admire, especially as they provide information that I can absorb and use.
What is it about empirical data that scares you? or is it just a personal incompetence that you dont want others to notice? is it a learning disability? My psyche class really wants to know... you are our most predictable subject...
be interesting to see what your POV is
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
I don't think it is helpful to disregard the role of politics in AGW, and in fact quite naive. While I leave it up to climate science to determine the validity of AGW, There Is No Doubt that a) politics has created an atmosphere where findings counter to the 'AGW Alarmism mantra', are deliberately silenced,..and b) politics of the far left are using AGW as a foot-in-the-door for their political agenda.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
I believe in the SCIENCE, the EMPIRICAL data

No, only the data you want to believe.
"Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was "less than helpful" to their cause, it was claimed last night. "
http://www.thetim...1344.ece

Noumenon
2 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
as a free-market capitalist guy, I advocate strong government for the protection of property rights, natural rights, and the judicial system, as vital for a valid capitalistic system to even exist.


And yet you are unable and/or unwilling to understand that that the two(as ideally defined) do not exist in nature [..] without degenerating into chaos.


A "laissez faire capitalist" system has yet to exist, however it is more inline with human nature than socialism/communism, which HAS existed for all to see the results.

The fallacy that your "kind" continues to be spoon fed by leftist propaganda, is that "laissez faire capitalism" is to be equated with anarchy, because it is falsely believed that it implies lawlessness,.... while as I have pointed out, it rather necessitates the existence of laws and protection of private property, and a judicial system. The choas exists in your head.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) May 16, 2014
I don't think it is helpful to disregard the role of politics in AGW
@nou
there is a difference between disregard in the real world and arguing science and establishing the reality of a situation. I do not disregard the politics in the REAL world. So that point is moot here. My point is specific to the establishment of reality and the situation at hand, which is specifically the science behind the warming problem and the causes. I believe in the science and the empirical data, but some refuse to believe in reality even in the face of overwhelming evidence: cue rygg
This is specifically my point, and always has been. Ryg posts political BS that is irrelevant to the establishment of the FACTS, like above. he believes in the conspiracy: the odds are against it.
and unnamed scientists without peer reviewed studies are just conspiracy junkies... bring me empirical data and I change my mind. that's how it works.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) May 16, 2014
No, only the data you want to believe
@ry
personal conjecture without evidence
in fact, easy to prove wrong on this site alone. if you search all my posts, my mind WILL be changed by EMPIRICAL DATA and peer reviewed sources that are substantiated with additional replicated results that confirm it. See BICEP.
also... your times link is not a valid reference. You yourself have complained about the media bias... unless you have some peer reviewed study that is supported by the times article, it is crap and (again) irrelevant.

unlike you, I CAN change my mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I noticed that you are refusing to answer the questions and provide your POV... scared?
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
I believe in the science and the empirical data, but some refuse to believe in reality even in the face of overwhelming evidence


I'll make a few points on this; The prior 17 years pause in global warming caught climate scientists by surprise, which is to say their models did not predict this.... and some even admit that if this continues their models are in trouble. This does not mean AGW is wrong, the point is there is a limit to what can be validly claimed on the basis of empirical data available and the data complexity of the subject.

Also, the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere will not dissapate merely because everyone agrees on AGW empiracal data. So the issue has nothing to do with the "denialists", and everything to do with techonological, economic, and political realities,... and those realities are directly tied to the egoistic nature of humans,... as much the AWG alarmists as the denialists.

It is not the "evil oil barons" nor the "denialists",... it is demand.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
This is specifically my point, and always has been. Ryg posts political BS that is irrelevant to the establishment of the FACTS, like above. he believes in the conspiracy: the odds are against it.


But politics is NOT irrelevent if you ever expect anything to be done about AGW. And there is no made up conspiracy,.... it is not even hidden that the far left advocates massive redistribution of wealth, government control of energy, both production and use.

and unnamed scientists without peer reviewed studies are just conspiracy junkies... bring me empirical data and I change my mind. that's how it works.


I just provided a link showing another case where peer reviewed journals rejected a study ON THE BASIS OF THE POLITICAL EFFECT, and not on the merits of the papers themselves.

Also, the vast majority of those who accept AGW do NOT themselves analyze empiracal data, but rather rely on others to do this for them.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
The "denialists" matter to AGW as much as those who believe in bigfoot matter to ethology.

If you think that the "evil oil companies" are forcing economies to run on oil, or that the masses will voluntarily reduce their standard of living on account of a non-provable hypothesis (wrt future predictions), you have a contempt for facts and reality.
Stevepidge
2.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
Question: do you know how many varieties, and in what respective quantities, of various pesticides and preservatives you consume with your food on a daily basis? Would you like to know, at least? Well, that's tough shit, because it would be unprofitable for certain people if you knew.


Ahh the double edged sword of science, guess what sweet heart, Big business = big governement, money = power. The new priest class ( scientists) same as the old priest class. You are incredibly naive in how the world works now and will work FOREVER. You cannot destroy evil or eradicate it, you can only hope to restrain it. You really think govt cares about its citizens at the top levels?? Govt kills far more people than any other man made construct ever will, get over yourself.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
Rygsuckn'n'nonoUnme attempt to get some traction with poor widdle Bengtsson's tale of woe, while ignoring the whole context of his stinging rejection by the publisher of Environmental Research Letters:

http://www.rawsto...science/

Some other pertinent analysis is icluded as a bonus.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014

From rygsuckn':


Bastiat described the limits of good govt in The Law. He said in the 1840s the main flaw with the US was its failure to protect the lives and liberty of blacks. He was correct and [[[[that flaw has led the US down the path of more socialist tyranny]]]]

''A perfect example of your conflationist chicanery, and the lengths to which you are willing to travel to justify your sociopathy.

Cali supports slavery?


From nonoUnme:

A "laissez faire capitalist" system has yet to exist, however it is more inline with human nature than [[[[[socialism/communism,]]]]]] which HAS existed for all to see the results.


Notice the bracketed bits, and notice their relationship with the passages they are parts of.

This is what I term conflationist chicanery, and it is plain for any one to take note of.

It makes plain the intractible sociopathy of both authors.

Too bad your mothers didn't eat you both while your bones were still soft.
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
@Stevepidge,
guess what sweet heart, Big business = big governement, money = power
Could you please explain that to the promoters of the laissez-faire panacea? I'm tired of telling them the same thing over and over...
The new priest class ( scientists)
Huh?
You cannot destroy evil or eradicate it, you can only hope to restrain it.
I get a feeling you're beset by entire legions of belligerent straw men. I wish you luck in your valiant struggle...
You really think govt cares about its citizens at the top levels??
Only as much as citizens care about their govt at the bottom levels.
Govt kills far more people than any other man made construct ever will, get over yourself
Govt also prevents many more deaths than any other man made construct ever will. Somehow, you only take notice of the failures and disasters, while completely ignoring the successes and triumphs. Maybe you just can't see them behind all those armies of straw men encircling you...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
Death by state:
"Governments have murdered hundreds of millions of their citizens and those under their control. The questions are, then, how is this democide defined, is genocide included, how many have been killed, how do we find this out, and what sources can be used?"
http://www.hawaii...RDER.HTM
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
"A May 7th solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks "the commercial acquisition of submachine guns [in] .40 Cal. S&W."
http://www.breitb...gazines"

The USDA is afraid of farmers?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
"Delay, sadly, is not alone. Again and again the apparatus of the state and its police power destroy their perceived political enemies. The examples are sadly too numerous to document, but here are just a few."
"Armed officers showed up at people's homes before dawn, refusing to let them contact their attorneys, restrained them under police supervision, and seized their business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices. What nefarious activities were they involved in? They created the Wisconsin Club for Growth and supported Wisconsin governor Scott Walker."
http://dailycalle...dissent/
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
"Delay, sadly, is not alone. Again and again the apparatus of the state and its police power destroy their perceived political enemies. The examples are sadly too numerous to document, but here are just a few."
"Armed officers showed up at people's homes before dawn, refusing to let them contact their attorneys, restrained them under police supervision, and seized their business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices. What nefarious activities were they involved in? They created the Wisconsin Club for Growth and supported Wisconsin governor Scott Walker."
http://dailycalle...dissent/


Yes, and all in pursuance to one of the larger and more sordid corruption probes in recent US history.

Oh, and by the way, you forgot to holler:

Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
Govt also prevents many more deaths


"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is facing mounting evidence that some of the hospitals it runs have been keeping two sets of books to make it look as if they were reducing waiting times to see a doctor. "
"the department is investigating the claims of a whistleblower doctor in Arizona that dozens of patients at one hospital died while they were languishing on a hidden waiting list without ever being given an appointment. "
http://www.ft.com...1voyXxNL

""NHS death rate is one of worst in the West," says the Daily Mail, while The Times front page warns of "Alarm over 'high' death rate in English hospitals"."
http://www.nhs.uk...als.aspx
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2014
"Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year"

Read more: http://www.dailym...1vqZ2NlJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

"Have you lost a loved one to breast cancer recently? If so, you probably wished with all your heart that your sister, mother, or wife had detected it earlier. Perhaps they would have – if the device that clinicians are calling "one of the most effective weapons against breast cancer" hadn't been banned from the US market by the FDA."
http://isil.org/d...the-fda/
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
"A May 7th solicitation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks "the commercial acquisition of submachine guns [in] .40 Cal. S&W."
http://www.breitb...gazines"

The USDA is afraid of farmers?


Rygg2: My favorite would be the UMP

http://www.hk-usa...eral.asp

Do I get to vote on what they get?

You do know that USDA has an armed section (as do almost all civilian departments) for enforcement of laws and protection of US Agriculture against terrorism. Do you expect them to be completely unarmed? Do you think they are out to get you?

I'll be out firing a suppressed MP-5 this weekend. That is the predecessor to the UMP. All legal in our great country.
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2014
I know: how DARE the government not save as many lives as it possibly could/should have?
Sometimes this delay protects us from side effects not readily detected in animal studies. The sedative thalidomide, for example, was marketed in Europe for several years while awaiting FDA approval. In the early 1960′s, the sensitivity of an unborn child to the deforming effects of drugs was not widely appreciated, so doctors began prescribing thalidomide to pregnant women. Consequently, approximately 12,000 European children were born with deformed limbs. Few American babies were affected because only a few test samples had been distributed in this country. The FDA physician who had delayed its approval was given a Presidential Award.
No link provided, since ryggesogn2 already did that above...

Granted, today the FDA is too inefficient, and its review/approval processes should be streamlined (and also better funded.) The latter, of course, is anathema to CONservantives.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2014
"Patent medicines originated in England, where a patent was granted to Richard Stoughton's Elixir in 1712. Since there was no federal regulation in the USA concerning safety and effectiveness of drugs until the 1906 Food and Drugs Act and various medicine salesmen or manufacturers seldom had enough skills in analytical chemistry to analyze the contents of snake oil, it became the archetype of hoax.
The snake oil peddler became a stock character in Western movies: a travelling "doctor" with dubious credentials, selling fake medicines with boisterous marketing hype, often supported by pseudo-scientific evidence. To increase sales, an accomplice in the crowd (a shill) would often attest to the value of the product in an effort to provoke buying enthusiasm. The "doctor" would leave town before his customers realized they had been cheated. This practice is also called grifting and its practitioners are called grifters."

http://en.wikiped...nake_oil

No FDA = FRRREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 16, 2014
" But if there were no FDA and if any drug were available over the counter, my incentives to become educated would change."
"All I know for certain is that a world without the FDA and without prescriptions would have more personal responsibility and more choice.

I also know for certain that there would be tragic outcomes as well. Without the protection of the government, some people would be taken advantage of by unscrupulous drug manufacturers and deceptive marketing. Some people would hurt themselves taking the wrong drugs or neglecting various drug interactions.

But others would be saved by the wider and earlier availability of life-saving drugs."
http://www.fee.or...-the-fda
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (9) May 16, 2014

also know for certain that there would be tragic outcomes as well. Without the protection of the government.. unscrupulous drug manufacturers and deceptive marketing. Some people would hurt themselves taking the wrong drugs or neglecting various drug interactions.


Absolutely.

Especially so, considering that --absent regulation-- there wouldn't be any compulsory requirement for adverse reactions/ interactions disclosure, and therefore zero funding of clinical research forthcoming from the PharmaCons to discover them.

But I bet there would still be a legal charter requirement for any such corporations to never knowlingly expose their operations to any such Adverse Risk, and thereby reduce the return of profits to the stakeholders.

Then, the poor consumer would have to rely upon idiotic sources like; http://www.fee.or...-the-fda to "educate" themselves about the relative benefits/risks of any medication they were considering.

Too bad there's no cure for moron.

PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
if any drug were available over the counter, my incentives to become educated would change
Must be nice to have the luxury of time and energy for becoming educated. I doubt this individual spends his days working a hard menial job-or-two at or below minimal wage -- as is the case for an ever-larger fraction of Job Performers in this country. But who cares about them; we only care about Job Creators...
more personal responsibility and more choice
For the people "in the know", sure. As for the Peons -- they might as well get CONned out of whatever little money they had in the first place. After all, that's what CONservantives are all about!
Some people would hurt themselves taking the wrong drugs or neglecting various drug interactions.
But others would be saved by the wider and earlier availability of life-saving drugs.
Yep. "I just want to get mine. F**k everyone else. ESPECIALLY the Peons." Typical CONservantive thinking. Sociopaths of a feather...
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
@R2 "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." Geotge Carlin. So what popped your bubble?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
I'll be out firing a suppressed MP-5 this weekend. That is the predecessor to the UMP. All legal in our great country
@Pink
I am jealouse... can I come play? I LOVE the MP5. never fired a supressed though. used them in CQB and for entering/clearing. very effective and accurate IMHO. Although I've always been a fan of the .45 sidearm, the MP5 in 9mm is a fantastic and FUN weapon
I just want to get mine. F**k everyone else. ESPECIALLY the Peons
wait.. this is BAD??!! :-)
Read more: http://www.dailym...1vqZ2NlJ
@rygg
your links are getting worse: you feeling desperate to find something as irrelevant as possible? how about this one
Ni! Ni!
Your argument reminds me of the Fish Slapping Dance, rygg
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
Rygsuckn'n'nonoUnme attempt to get some traction with poor widdle Bengtsson's tale of woe, while ignoring the whole context of his stinging rejection by the publisher of Environmental Research Letters:

http://www.rawsto...science/

Some other pertinent analysis is icluded as a bonus.
Excellent link Caliban!
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists
@ryg
Those who think scientists keep silent on global warming presumably because they fear the barbs of the world demonstrate a peculiar kind of paranoia, especially since what they fear largely does not exist. More prosaically they need to recall Carl Sagan's words again because the claim that scientist don't dare to speak out against global warming in the literature is, quite definitely, an extraordinary claim. And it doesn't seem to stand up to even ordinary evidence
http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

2000 peer-reviewed publications
for global warming? 9136 agree against it? 1 disagrees
more like 99.99-0.01%

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
"Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was "less than helpful" to their cause, it was claimed last night. "
http://www.thetim...1344.ece
@rygg
you posted this as fact... now read THE WHOLE TRUTH

http://ioppublish...he-times

You can also find this link in Caliban's Excellent link posted above.
guess you missed that, huh? too long? too many facts?

@Caliban
That was one EXCELLENT link with a LOT of good info! especially the link showing exactly what the peer review referee actually wrote... seems the Times is a little Biased, huh? ratings? money? Hmmm..... and Rygg fell for it hook, line and sinker. they even tried to help the prof with suggestions.
Guess the prof wanted the rejection more than the publication, which makes one wonder... was it all contrived for the bad publicity? supporting conspiracy?

Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (4) May 17, 2014
Rygsuckn'n'nonoUnme attempt to get some traction with poor widdle Bengtsson's tale of woe, while ignoring the whole context of his stinging rejection by the publisher of Environmental Research Letters:

Some other pertinent analysis is icluded as a bonus.


Not only does your link NOT refute the claim reported in the (non-conservative) NYT and linked to by other news outlets, ...it validates it. The point reported was not that the paper was rejected on the basis of scientific quality,... but included the following concern for political consequences,....

"....actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side"

.... your link even admits this stated concern which 'has no place in science' according to CapStumpy to which I replied. That was the salient point,... that there is a political component that is operative in countering opinions not in line with the alarmism mantra. Not healthy fot science.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2014
From [Noumenon]:

A "laissez faire capitalist" system has yet to exist, however it is more inline with human nature than [[[[[socialism/communism,]]]]]] which HAS existed for all to see the results.


Notice the bracketed bits, and notice their relationship with the passages they are parts of.

This is what I term conflationist chicanery, and it is plain for any one to take note of.


Actually you're an expert at chicanery and especially vagarity. For example, you made no point in that response.

I never mentioned "laissez faire capitalism" until in response to your post initiating the discusion "as ideally defined", ....thus the comment was to contrast the two idealogies.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2014
"I just want to get mine. F**k everyone else. ESPECIALLY the Peons."

Sounds just like the typical socialist who plunders the wealth of everyone.

Too bad there's no cure for moron.

Socialist dependence turns people like Cali, hottie,,,,into the morons they are revealing themselves to be.
Live by the state, die by the state. FDA approves drugs that kill. Govt promotes diets that kill, ....
"In state they trust"
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2014
"I just want to get mine. F**k everyone else. ESPECIALLY the Peons."

Sounds just like the typical socialist who plunders the wealth of everyone.

Too bad there's no cure for moron.

Socialist dependence turns people like Cali, hottie,,,,into the morons they are revealing themselves to be.
Live by the state, die by the state. FDA approves drugs that kill. Govt promotes diets that kill, ....
"In state they trust"

'Liberals' think themselves sooo smart yet they need a govt bureaucrat to tell them how to live and what to buy. Do 'liberals' think govt bureaucrats are smarter then they? Or do 'liberals' believe themselves to be so elite, and smart, that they need to take care of the ignorant masses?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
"The Environmental Protection Agency is cracking down on hazardous air pollutant emissions from petroleum refineries in order to protect public health. The only problem is, the EPA does not quantify any of the benefits to public health from this quarter-billion dollar regulation."

Read more: http://dailycalle...1yQTKJHc

Where is the science to support the costs?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
"As the federal government takes over more and more of the healthcare system, there should be a lesson for us. Simply promising more healthcare does not mean delivering more healthcare. And government healthcare systems have a very poor record of delivering what they promise."
http://nypost.com...lthcare/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2014
"According to Huy Fong Foods CEO, David Tran, the city's over zealous persecution of the 30 year old California plant reminds him of growing up in Communist Vietnam.

"Today, I feel almost the same. Even now, we live in (the) USA, and my feeling, the government, not a big difference," he said.

At a local city council meeting, the New York Times reported that Tran asked, "Why do you want to shut me down...I'm not sure why the U.S.A. lets local government do stupid things like this."
"Texas' business friendly environment actively encourages companies to move to the Lone Star State. Should the delegation's efforts be successful, Huy Fong Foods will join Toyota and countless other companies who have abandoned the sinking California ship of state for Texas.

In his life, David Tran has already had to flee one communist state for a free one. Here's to hoping he can do it again."
http://www.breitb...tnam-Tex
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2014
Ryg posts political BS that is irrelevant to the establishment of the FACTS, like above. he believes in the conspiracy: the odds are against it.


And you and the troll rating cabal, think there is a conspiracy preventing anything from being done about it. Complete and utter non-sensical drivel.

As I pointed out above, ...the issue has nothing to do with the "denialists" nor "evil" oil barons, but everything to do with techonological, economic, and political realities,... and what the far left deem a problem,... freedom of choice and instinctual egoistic nature of man. Stop denying this, denier-face.

Now, which is easier to control, the global thermostat, or the global economy and human nature?

Much of the hysteria associated of future predictions presumes that humans will not migrate nor be able to adapt in time. The temp increase is so slow that generations will not likely even be consciously aware that they are reacting to AGW but perusing their own interests day by day
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2014
Dissent!

"Feinstein said environmentalists "have never been helpful to me in producing good water policy. You can't have a water infrastructure for 16 million people and say, 'Oh, it's fine for 38 million people,' when we're losing the Sierra Nevada snowpack.'"

When she was queried if the environmental groups would resent her proposed legislation, she said, "Well, that's really too bad, isn't it? I would be very happy to know what they propose... I have not had a single constructive view from environmentalists of how to provide water when there is no snowpack.""
http://www.breitb...-Drought

And another example of how govt management fails.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (4) May 17, 2014
Personally, I think it is a mistake for the political right to argue the scientific merits of AGW, after all by definition "climate scientists" are the ones who get to define their own field, and this is so irrespective of how accurate their predictions are.

Instead, the absurdity of the political far left, can be better exposed by evolving the debate to "what to actually do about it". Then the 'conspiracy theory ball' will be in their court. It would also rule out the lunatics from both sides from the rational.

I'll add this quote just to annoy the liberal bed-wetting cabal who may have voted for him,....

"If the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change,.....I don't think anybody's going to go for that. ......I won't go for that." - B. Obama
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
Stumpy, your govt at work:

"VA Fast-Tracks Sex Change for Manning While Vets Die on Waiting Lists"
http://www.breitb...ng-Lists
Why do you trust govt paid climate scientists?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2014
And you and the troll rating cabal, think there is a conspiracy preventing anything from being done about it. Complete and utter non-sensical drivel
@Nou
and you justify this how? what conspiracy, specifically, am I supposed to believing in? please, spell this out for me!

THIS is where you seem to be having a problem understanding me
I KNOW politics is involved, and I am involved personally outside of this site. who cares
I KNOW actions will have to be taken, etc. and even though I hate gov't, it is a reality that I live with every day and there is no real escape. SO WHAT
I DONT CARE ABOUT THE POLITICS
that argument is for Rygg. I am not here to argue about the politics, ONLY THE SCIENCE
there is a reason for this: MY political position is irrelevant, just like yours/rygg's is in an argument about SCIENCE and factual data. this is a SCIENCE site, not at POLI-SCI site

please... tell me what the point is, Nou! and fill me in on my "beliefs" that I seem to not know about!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2014
Stumpy, your govt at work: blah blah blah
Why do you trust govt paid climate scientists?
@rygg
why do you ignore empirical data?
why do you NOT TRUST empirical data?
Why do you always argue against proven fact?
why do you think I give a shite about the VA and sex changes? (you do NOT know all the circumstances behind the operation, and neither do I)
WHY do you believe there is some grand conspiracy?
By the way, the NSA said "stop playing with yourself. it gums up the equipment"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
why do you NOT TRUST empirical data?

Why do you trust the data collected, analyzed and published by govt funded scientists with an agenda?
An agenda that has been referenced many times. Data stumpy ignores.
I DONT CARE ABOUT THE POLITICS

But the politics drives the data.
Why do you trust data from a govt that lies to you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014

"Justice demands that Mann's claim of Proprietary Rights be offset by the way in which the data and work was funded, produced and used. Funding was public at all levels, the IPCC is a UN agency globally funded, their work received maximum public approval with a Nobel Prize, their work was consciously directed and promoted to influence public policy through the Summary for Policymakers that profoundly altered national and international policies for energy and economies. If they believe the work done is so valuable, why do they persist in keeping it from the public? "
http://wattsupwit...justice/

How to trust data that won't be released?
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (4) May 17, 2014
And you and the troll rating cabal, think there is a conspiracy preventing anything from being done about it.

@Nou
and you justify this how? what conspiracy, specifically, am I supposed to believing in? please, spell this out for me!

Do you think that enough is being done to fix the global climate? If not, who would you blame?
Perhaps I should not have tossed you in with the P.O. liberal cabal. Some of them blame "deniers", and some that blame big oil.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
...snip...concern for political consequences,....

"....actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side"
When taken out of context, yes. WHen taken in context, the concern relates to deniers latching onto false, made up errors based only on the loose wording employed by this author. It is NOT the politics that concerned the reviewer, it is the ease with which deniers can redefine the intent of the author.

.... your link even admits this stated concern which 'has no place in science' according to CapStumpy to which I replied. That was the salient point,... that there is a political component that is operative in countering opinions not in line with the alarmism mantra.
That is not the salient point, but your suggesting it is is exactly the deliberate misinterpretation the reviewer was worried about.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
Personally, I think it is a mistake for the political right to argue the scientific merits of AGW, after all by definition "climate scientists" are the ones who get to define their own field, and this is so irrespective of how accurate their predictions are.

Instead, the absurdity of the political far left, can be better exposed by evolving the debate to "what to actually do about it". Then the 'conspiracy theory ball' will be in their court. It would also rule out the lunatics from both sides from the rational.

I'll add this quote just to annoy the liberal bed-wetting cabal who may have voted for him,....

"If the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change,.....I don't think anybody's going to go for that. ......I won't go for that." - B. Obama

About the only part of your 3-part rant that has a modicum of sense in it.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
...snip...concern for political consequences,....

"....actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side"
When taken out of context, yes. WHen taken in context, the concern relates to deniers latching onto false, made up errors based only on the loose wording employed by this author. It is NOT the politics that concerned the reviewer, it is the ease with which deniers can redefine the intent of the author.

.... your link even admits this stated concern which 'has no place in science' according to CapStumpy to which I replied. That was the salient point,... that there is a political component that is operative in countering opinions not in line with the alarmism mantra.
That is not the salient point, but your suggesting it is is exactly the deliberate misinterpretation the reviewer was worried about.


Piezackly, Maggnus.

The facts are irrelevant for rygsuckn'n'nonoUnme, et al.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
@Noumenon,
Instead, the absurdity of the political far left, can be better exposed by evolving the debate to "what to actually do about it".
I don't know if you've noticed, so I'll point this out to you in the name of public service (and free of charge):

This site is called "Phys.org".

Your actual interests clearly lie more along the lines of "PublicPolicy.org".

Happy trails! :-) (And good riddance...)
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
When this site stops posting articles involving public policy and AGWism, then you won't have to defend your socialism.
Well, you refuse to defend your socialism and resort to insults. A sure sign you have lost the argument.
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
I'll start defending my socialism just as soon as you stop beating your wife.

As for AGW, it's science not public policy. That you can't distinguish between the two, is one of several reasons why I generally ignore your brain-damaged rants and skip over your OT BS. If that offends your sense of self-esteem or importance in the world, I don't apologize.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
When this site stops posting articles involving public policy and AGWism, then you won't have to defend your socialism.
Well, you refuse to defend your socialism and resort to insults. A sure sign you have lost the argument.


There's a far better chance that PO will stop posting "...articles involving public policy and AGWism..." than that you will somehow recover from your stupidiosity.

Anyone --and I do mean anyone-- able to effect that miracle cure will get my vote for Canonization, as they will well, truly, and incontrovertibly have accomplished a bona fide miracle and thereforedesrve elevation.

All hail St. Trollscure!

I'll not be holding my breath on any of these.

Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
When this site stops posting articles involving public policy and AGWism, then you won't have to defend your socialism.
Well, you refuse to defend your socialism and resort to insults. A sure sign you have lost the argument.


Where is the socialism?


Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
When this site stops posting articles involving public policy and AGWism, then you won't have to defend your socialism.
Well, you refuse to defend your socialism and resort to insults. A sure sign you have lost the argument.


No, moron, I don't have to defend my "socialism" here, and this is precisely the point that that you studiously avoid acknowledging. The "debate" --insofar as settled science can be "debated" is about an issue that is not inherently political in any way, shape, or form.

Is AGW/Global Warming/Climate Change a Tea Party, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Socialist, Communist, Capitalist, Fascist, liberal or Conservative constituent?

Of course not!

Therefore, you continually indulge your conflationist chicanery to try to create such an affiliation, because you know that addressing this threat to all of us is going to have some possibly negative effects upon your PERSONAL sociopoliticaleconomic ideology and practice.

That is what worries you.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
And this is why you aren't at all, or in any way, concerned with debating this issue purely upon a factual basis of the merit and validity of the millions of hours of scienctific investigation which have gone in to it thus far. That debate --for as long as there may have been one-- has long been put to rest.

Your sole purpose here is to attempt to confuse, obscure, and inflame. You don't want open, rational debate. You do everything, and by any means or methods available to you, to stifle and derail any actual debate of the science, hoping that this will result in waitandseedonothingnow.

All motivated by the fear that you are somehow going to end up the loser when this grave threat is actually adressed on a global level, since this is the only way that it can be effectively dealt with.

And I'm not willing to undergo prolonged suffering or maybe even die, just so that your investments can earn a couple more percent, or so that you can drive a goddam Hummer.

Moron.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2014
As for AGW, it's science not public policy.

What does the IPCC do?
Who do they work for?
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
As for AGW, it's science not public policy.

What does the IPCC do?
Who do they work for?


You got nothin'.

Just like I only now finished saying.

Moron.

PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
What does the IPCC do?
Compiles and summarizes research done by scientists and researchers all over the world.
Who do they work for?
A gigantic, globe-spanning, society-pervading, New World Order conspiracy.

What do YOU do?
Who do you work for?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 17, 2014
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts."
"The IPCC is an intergovernmental body."
"By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content."
{Quite circular. If the govts endorse the IPCC reports, the scientific content is validated. That's not peer review.}
"he work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive. "
{That's a lie.}
http://www.ipcc.c...on.shtml
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
"This chapter has provided information on the national and international policy options available to governments and the global community to address global climate change."
http://www.ipcc.c...3-5.html
No policy proscriptions?
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2014
"By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content."
{Quite circular. If the govts endorse the IPCC reports, the scientific content is validated. That's not peer review.}
Official endorsement and/or formal acknowledgement are not the same thing as either scientific validation or peer review. Your stupidity is excruciating.
No policy proscriptions?
No policy prescriptions. Only policy suggestions. There's a difference between a list of scientifically evaluated options and a prescription.

One more time:

What do YOU do?
Who do you work for?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2014
Do you think that enough is being done to fix the global climate? If not, who would you blame?
@Nou
I am not answering the above two questions because they are irrelevant to the argument of science on a science site. I really do think that they should be posted in another area/forum more politically/policy directed. Suffice it to say, my senators/representatives know my name because I AM active in certain areas. AND, most importantly, when I DO have to discuss anything with a politician, I STAY ON SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS
govt funded scientists with an agenda?
@Rygg the wife beater
please provide empirical data or a peer reviewed study supporting this conjecture
Why do you trust data from a govt that lies to you?
WHY do YOU trust data from blogs/sites/conspiracies that have continually been proven to have lied to you and everyone else?
Why do you believe in information that has been proven wrong over and over?

What do YOU do?
Who do you work for?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) May 18, 2014
@Noumenon,
Instead, the absurdity of the political far left, can be better exposed by evolving the debate to "what to actually do about it".
I don't know if you've noticed, so I'll point this out to you in the name of public service (and free of charge):

This site is called "Phys.org".

Your actual interests clearly lie more along the lines of "PublicPolicy.org".

Happy trails! :-) (And good riddance...)


Yet Phys.Org routinely posts political articles in relation to AGW. The present one is of statistical polling of farmers opinions.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
....The "debate" --[....]... is about an issue that is not inherently political in any way, shape, or form.

Is AGW/Global Warming/Climate Change a Tea Party, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Socialist, Communist, Capitalist, Fascist, liberal or Conservative constituent?

Of course not!

....you know that addressing this threat to all of us is going to have some possibly negative effects upon your PERSONAL [liberty and freedom]

Do you even read your own posts? Of course the core science has nothing to do with politics,.... but ....WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT,... has EVERYTHING to do with politics. It is not debatable that the far left is using AGW to enact big gov control. This has to be countered.

If it was simply a matter of noding in agreement with climate science, then the problem would have been solved, because there are enough who do so to have made a difference by now,... but yet they act equivelently to the "deniers" wrt CO2 energy use.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
Do you think that enough is being done to fix the global climate? If not, who would you blame?

@Nou
I am not answering the above two questions because they are irrelevant to the argument of science on a science site.


That question, of preeminent importance, the Cabal are not willing to discuss on the premise that "this is a science site", yet they're perfectly willing to Jerry-Springer the crap out of Phys.Org,... as well as ignore the present political article and many such like it that are routinely posted at Phys.Org. Irrational.

AGW has everything to do with science,... not the core science,... but the alarmism motivation obviously is to promote a sense of urgency amongst politicians to enact policys without the time to analyze the constitutional consequences.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2014
EDIT : "AGW has everything to do with [politics],... not the core science,...but the alarmism motivation obviously is to promote a sense of urgency amongst politicians to enact policys without the time to analyze the consequences [to liberty, freedom, economies] ."

Phys.Org routinely posts political articles associating "deniers" with "the tea party" and physiological analysis of those Phys.Org don't agree with,... like conservatives,... and many of the Cabal activily participates in those resulting comments.

So don't give me that hypocritical "this is a science site" gibberish, while the vast majority of your own posts have zero to do with a raw analysis of data.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2014
Stumpy claims to like science, demanding piratical data and peer review before accepting anything.
Where does the empirical data come from?
Why does any scientist begin to collect empirical data?
The first step in science is observation. Observing, formulation questions, developing theories, conducting experiments, collecting, analyzing reporting data, etc.
Stump doesn't seem to have any interest in doing science. Only reporting the science someone else has done.
Thanks for participating in my experiments.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) May 18, 2014
""On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." -Stephen Schneider, Stanford.

[repost from ryggesogn2 in another thread, appropriate here wrt "Alarmism to create a sense of political urgency"]
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
the Cabal are not willing to discuss on the premise that "this is a science site"
@nou
1- I am not a cabal
2- I am not arguing the politics, only the personal attacks against idiots who THINK they know my politics (like rygg-tard)
3- where am I arguing the politics above? Please point it out. in fact, hit other threads concerning climate change if you like... please point out where I argue the politics at all
the alarmism motivation
your personal opinion. when I discuss this OFF phys.org, to senators or representatives, I do not use anything other than science. period.

you cannot argue something that is subjective to the individual
subjective information (even if followed by millions) is NOT empirical, nor can it be used as evidence unless supporting an point to establish a circumstantial link
and only then if you can prove through supporting evidence that the individual subscribes to the circumstantial or subjective belief in question
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
Where does the empirical data come from?
@rygg the addict wife-beating commie
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, Εμπειρία (empeiría): https://en.wikipe...evidence
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses:
https://en.wikipe...c_method
Stump doesn't seem to have any interest in doing science
personal conjecture based on stupidity and illiteracy
Only reporting the science...
not "only", therefore ALSO conjecture based upon STUPIDITY

actually, you ARE in an experiment, rygg, & I am a contributing author
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
There was 40 years of 'empirical data' claiming saturated fat causes heart disease.
They were wrong.
Why were they so wrong?
For the same reasons AGWites are wrong about climate.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
@Noumenon,
Phys.Org routinely posts political articles associating "deniers" with "the tea party" and physiological analysis of those Phys.Org don't agree with,... like conservatives,... and many of the Cabal activily participates in those resulting comments. So don't give me that hypocritical "this is a science site" gibberish
Social studies is science. Physiology (really?) is science (unless we're talking about something like cranial-rectal inversion...) Political science, even, is science. Politics and public policy, on the other hand, are not science. Also, 2+2=4.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
There was 40 years of 'empirical data' claiming saturated fat causes heart disease.
They were wrong.
Why were they so wrong?
Because you might be leaping to conclusions, as usual.

http://en.wikiped...journals

Things might be getting less clear now, because of the obesity epidemic driven by over-consumption of sugar (e.g. HFCS), general over-eating and overindulgence in junk foods (a la Super Size Me.) Obesity in itself is a huge risk factor, and not just for heart disease. Before obesity (and lack of exercise) was so wide-spread, other risk factors might have played a relatively more salient role.
For the same reasons AGWites are wrong about climate.
Let me guess: obesity. Also, which aspect of climate are "AGWites" wrong about, exactly? And how do you figure that?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
There was 40 years of 'empirical data' claiming saturated fat causes heart disease.
They were wrong.
Why were they so wrong?
For the same reasons AGWites are wrong about climate.


Rygg2: Please go eat all of the saturated fat you can. Really, it will be fine. One meta-study that agrees with your point of view will completely protect you. Give me your address and I will gladly send you sausages... I suspect that you will get all of the great tasting food you can eat from this site alone...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 18, 2014
I do like natural fats like coconut oil and grass fed beef fat is quite healthy along with full fat yogurt and butter.
What is not healthy are sugars and starches and 'whole grains' the state claims you should eat.

But I notice thermo doesn't understand why the diet studies fail.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2014
@Noumenon,
Phys.Org routinely posts political articles associating "deniers" with "the tea party" and physiological analysis of those Phys.Org don't agree with,... like conservatives,... and many of the Cabal activily participates in those resulting comments. So don't give me that hypocritical "this is a science site" gibberish
Social studies is science. Physiology (really?) is science (unless we're talking about something like cranial-rectal inversion...) Political science, even, is science. Politics and public policy, on the other hand, are not science. Also, 2+2=4.


I meant psychology. Sad that some can't tell the difference between propaganda and science and believe everything ever said by a scientists must be true.

If a climate scientist told you that wildfires are worse now because the global temperature has risen 1*C since 100 hundred years ago,... i'm sure you would swallow that whole, after all its science right?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
GCMs are generally not yet of sufficient fidelity to reliably predict small-scale climate effects. Even so, they're pretty unanimous when it comes to the consequences of AGW for the American south-west. While some other places might get more storms/rain/snow, over on the west coast below Washington, we're projected to, on average, get slightly less rain and slightly more evaporation than was our historical norm.

The current severe drought in California may or may not be part of a natural cycle. There have been much worse droughts here, centuries ago. However there's no telling (yet?) what caused those droughts. This one on the other hand seems to be at least in part due to the same phenomenon that gave the east coast and the mid-west such a nasty winter. Namely, the extra-meandering jet stream that got stuck in a particularly crooked configuration for a particularly long time over the winter season. Indications are, AGW will result in more of the same going forward.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) May 18, 2014
Our one hope and salvation (in the short term) over here might be the gigantic El Nino that seems to be developing this year. If it doesn't fizzle, it might bring CA/NV/AZ some much-need drought relief. Though depending on how monstrous it gets, the El Nino might also cause a lot of damage in other ways (mud slides, flooding... the usual El Nino side-effects.)

But generally speaking, based on everything that's come out of climate research to date, CA is in long-term deep trouble under AGW: the climate projections for our region indicate that we'll become more like Baja California going forward -- turning into even more of a desert, not unlike NV.

And yes, a steadily worsening fire season is part of that package. Whatever we're experiencing now, is merely a hint of the greater attractions to come...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 19, 2014
onsequences of AGW for the American south-west.

The G in GCM is 'global'.
But there was a significant drought in the SW hundreds of years ago.
Were those AGW? If so, where is the data.
And if such droughts occurred hundreds of years ago and were NOT AGW, why is any SW drought today AGW?
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) May 19, 2014

But there was a significant drought in the SW hundreds of years ago.
Were those AGW? If so, where is the data.
And if such droughts occurred hundreds of years ago and were NOT AGW, why is any SW drought today AGW?


Drought is simply a condition of below average precipitation, sometimes coupled with increased evapotranspiration, and is generally considered to be "weather". In the case of cyclic/periodic drought, since this implies a more or less recurrent condition over long time spans, then it could be termed climate --in a regional sense.

When increased land/sea surface temperatures, caused by the increased heat-trapping effect of rising, anthropogenically-generated CO2 emissions, produces greater severity or longevity of drought conditions, or causes them to form in an area not previously known to be so affected, then this can be termed AGW-enhanced or generated drought.

It's all in the wording, you see.

You can thank me later for the clarification.

Moron.