One thing I'm not really clear about in this thread... what do self-described conservatives feel should be done, generally, with the environment? are you in favor of any sorts of cleaning technologies for waste discharge from industry? what sort of efforts should we be seeing for changing energy sources, when fossil fuel supplies eventually dwindle? are you 100% hands-off, or do you see government offering some guidance (if not regulation) here at all?

12/3/2009 11:37:29 PM

Quote :

"NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. Please, show me ONE PLACE in the scientific method where it talks about consensus. ONE. That's all you gotta do. Besides, you STILL haven't commented on how the consensus is FAKE to begin with."

There is no such thing as consensus in complex problems, science is continually tested and re-tested. That being said, you really don't care about the empirical method or the validity of the global climate change problem.

12/3/2009 11:41:02 PM

as an engineer, I think we should invest lots of money and effort into alternative forms of energy. obviously, we will run out of oil at some point and even if we didn't, it's better to have free or cheaper energy than to maintain the status quo of fossil fuels from rogue states.

the scientific community does not have to destroy its legitimacy and the government does not have to lie in order to reach these goals.

global warming legislation and CO2 trading schemes have little to do with the environment and are primarily being promoted as a power grab and a completely new and lucrative source of graft.


Off topic... Just found this gem:

Quote :

"Another of Jones' e-mails reads, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right." "

lolz. I too, would like to be right no matter what.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 11:50 PM. Reason : s]

12/3/2009 11:44:08 PM

Quote :

"One thing I'm not really clear about in this thread... what do self-described conservatives feel should be done, generally, with the environment? are you in favor of any sorts of cleaning technologies for waste discharge from industry? what sort of efforts should we be seeing for changing energy sources, when fossil fuel supplies eventually dwindle? are you 100% hands-off, or do you see government offering some guidance (if not regulation) here at all?"

i am EXACTLY for what you guys are for. clean. green. whatever buzz word you want to use. fact is, a clean environment is the best. 100% electric cars everywhere. nuclear/solar/hydro/geothermal/wind energy only. recycle 100% (as much as possible even to painstaking measures)

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT. I don't want it to be a political mantra that gets you power votes where you can swing in your bullshit healthcare/social/welfare/3x what george bush is on pace to spend/do nothing power hungry congress/ etc/etc/etc

if you take that last part out i'm in your camp 100%

12/4/2009 12:47:11 AM

Quote :

"That allegedly tons of scientists think humans are making the earth hotter means nothing."

Does it? How do you know?

I'm curious what people actually believe about the climate and AGW. Denialists tend to link to whatever confirms their bias without actually arguing a consistent position. Off the top of my head here are a number of ideas I see frequently which I list in decreasing orders of nuttiness:
1) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
2) There is no warming (its UHI or whatever).
3) It's all the sun (an increase in the TSI).
3) It's cosmic rays! (despite a lack of mechanism & clear correlation)
4) Climate is ultra-sensitive to solar forcings (Scafetta and West model).
5) Negative feedbacks dominate (I just don't see it).
6) There's more noise in the the stick of the hockey blade which suggests current warming is unexceptional (whether AGW or not).

I've been too busy with work to really follow TWW.

As an aside, my friend and collaborator is a theoretical astrophysicist with a decent name in the field. He's also a staunch conservative and skeptical about climate alarmism. I consider it a small victory that I've got him to admit climate sensitivity is probably between 1.5-3 degrees C. Basically, he understands climate models aren't too different from stellar models and he doesn't think the latter are wrong (he works on them). His position is more that any regulation is going to be a complete waste of resources and/or ineffective. Which is a much more intellectually honest position to me than questioning the science.


Anyway, I've been busy with work and unable to contribute much

12/4/2009 2:26:40 AM

Quote :

"Cities, states, countries scramble to adapt to rising seas and higher temperatures; expected to be big topic at U.N.:"

it's hilarious, because there's no evidence that sea levels have risen any more than their historic rates. Hell, sea level rise has actually slowed in the past ten years.

Quote :

"That being said, you really don't care about the empirical method or the validity of the global climate change problem."

Oh, I most certainly do care. One of the things that irks me the most is how the empirical method has been completely bastardized. But, I guess I, too, can make unqualified statements.

Quote :

"1) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I don't see anyone here claiming that 2) There is no warming (its UHI or whatever). Whether there has been warming is actually up for debate. 3) It's all the sun (an increase in the TSI). 3) It's cosmic rays! (despite a lack of mechanism & clear correlation) there is correlation, and a supposed mechanism 4) Climate is ultra-sensitive to solar forcings (Scafetta and West model). the claim isn't that it's "ultra sensitive." Rather, it's that solar forcings dominate over lesser forces like CO2. By the way, the CO2 people are the ones effectively saying the climate is "ultra sensitive" to CO2. 5) Negative feedbacks dominate (I just don't see it). and positive feedbacks are absurdly high, too? 6) There's more noise in the the stick of the hockey blade which suggests current warming is unexceptional (whether AGW or not). the whole hockey stick was a fraud. Who cares about the "noise in the stick" when the whole fucking thing was a fraud "

12/4/2009 7:34:26 AM

Quote :

"Basically, he understands climate models aren't too different from stellar models and he doesn't think the latter are wrong (he works on them). His position is more that any regulation is going to be a complete waste of resources and/or ineffective."

This is a pretty reasonable position to take, except here's the rub: stellar models are not highly politicized and there is no social and political pressure to make your stellar models conform to what polite society demands.

Quote :

"Which is a much more intellectually honest position to me than questioning the science."

It would be intellectually honest to acknowledge the extreme politicization of climate models and stop pretending like there isn't an overwhelming amount of pressure to avoid publishing data/results that contradict popular global warmist ideology.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 7:43 AM. Reason : s]

12/4/2009 7:43:20 AM

In a nutshell, to keep my answer short my big problem with all this proposed government regulation over CO2 is quite simple. It gives the government (and in this case possibly an international governing body, NO THANKS) control over almost everything you do. Creating a articificially high cost for anything that results in the emissions of CO2 (READ 99% of everything) greatly extends the influence of government over you all in the name of the environment. Biggest scam I've ever heard of.

Additionally, it would cost far less money to adapt to changes instead of trying to "control" the climate (what a joke). Even the proposed plans to reduce CO2 enough to reduce the temp less than 1 degree Celsius will cost the world trillions upon trillions of dollars. It's pure madness.

Furthermore, the twofaced-ness of celebrities and millionaires pushing the green agendas asking people to make sacrifices is enough to make you sick. Like the pricks that own Google, nevermind that they bought a Boeing 767 as their personal party plane. Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who insists on flying every day from his home in LA to Sacremento.

12/4/2009 10:18:02 AM

Quote :

"Additionally, it would cost far less money to adapt to changes instead of trying to "control" the climate (what a joke)."

Do you have a link for this? I'd be interested in reading cost estimates for dealing with the effects of climate change vice limiting the changes in the first place.

12/4/2009 10:22:39 AM

Just a quickie,

Who says global warming is a bad thing?

12/4/2009 10:23:34 AM

^ Don't be a dumbass.

12/4/2009 10:43:49 AM

^this guy has the balls to put it out there that he knows that is bad.. and theres not even a potential that it isn't a solar system wide event as if he has proof to back it up that b/c a few seals are gonna lose 20% of their habitat that it's a global cataclysmic event. As if to say he KNOWS that it's an "evil" almost "religiously bad" that something like this is occuring and that it isn't nature itself adjusting and going through cycles as it has for millions of years. Think of all the data you are literally ignoring let alone "spiking" to fit your own little world of what you think is right. ha.

you sir are one illogical individual with not a wit of common sense and i'm sure your personal life matches it perfectly

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 11:49 AM. Reason : 4]

12/4/2009 11:47:42 AM

Quote :

"and that it isn't nature itself adjusting and going through cycles as it has for millions of years"

At least you agree that the earth is warming.

12/4/2009 11:59:45 AM

yeh too bad your 'scientists' are taking it to the extreme and saying that there's some 20 degree warmup on the way that is literally going devoid the planet of life as we know it if we don't vote more 'liberal green earth progressives' into office and fund them better

12/4/2009 12:12:25 PM

Quote :

"this guy has the balls to put it out there that he knows that is bad.. and theres not even a potential that it isn't a solar system wide event as if he has proof to back it up that b/c a few seals are gonna lose 20% of their habitat that it's a global cataclysmic event. As if to say he KNOWS that it's an "evil" almost "religiously bad" that something like this is occuring and that it isn't nature itself adjusting and going through cycles as it has for millions of years. Think of all the data you are literally ignoring let alone "spiking" to fit your own little world of what you think is right. ha. you sir are one illogical individual with not a wit of common sense and i'm sure your personal life matches it perfectly"

Again, I ask why you're singling me out? I've made no such "claims." Show me where I'm making any "claims" here, on one side or another. Show me where I have personally ignored data or "spiked" something to fit a worldview.

You have me confused with someone else. I'm getting pretty sick of you casting me in a role that I've not adopted.

12/4/2009 2:39:46 PM

^I'll single you out. You're a punk ass bitch. How's that shit feel???

12/4/2009 2:46:25 PM

^

Quote :

"Additionally, it would cost far less money to adapt to changes instead of trying to "control" the climate (what a joke)."

Do you have a link for this? I'd be interested in reading cost estimates for dealing with the effects of climate change vice limiting the changes in the first place.

12/4/2009 4:15:22 PM

I'll see if I can find something recent that answers your question but nothing comes to mind immediately. But I think it's pretty plain to see by looking at the supposed cost of any of these proposals, bills, mandates, protocols, etc. It's gonna cost trillions to supposedly lower the temp less than half a degree over 50 years. I mean do the math.

(most of the recent cost evaluations popped up around the time of the Waxman-Markey bill voting)

12/4/2009 4:21:59 PM

The article I posted on the last page talks about costs of adapting vs. doing nothing.

12/4/2009 5:25:18 PM

Quote :

"In a nutshell, to keep my answer short my big problem with all this proposed government regulation over CO2 is quite simple. It gives the government (and in this case possibly an international governing body, NO THANKS) control over almost everything you do. Creating a articificially high cost for anything that results in the emissions of CO2 (READ 99% of everything) greatly extends the influence of government over you all in the name of the environment. Biggest scam I've ever heard of. Additionally, it would cost far less money to adapt to changes instead of trying to "control" the climate (what a joke). Even the proposed plans to reduce CO2 enough to reduce the temp less than 1 degree Celsius will cost the world trillions upon trillions of dollars. It's pure madness."

Cost estimates on both sides is fuzzy and make believe math. You can sidetrack each pro and con CO2 regulation argument if you focus only on how much it may or may not cost with so many special conditionals that there's absolutely no point to put a dollar value on it.

However, the scientific link between greenhouse gasses and temperature increase is basic enough for anyone to understand and therefore the logical assumption that reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the long term is beneficial to the planet isn't a huge leap of scientific faith.

I also think its preposterous that anyone would argue for adaption over prevention when it comes to anything that has an associated negative effect, but that's just me.

12/4/2009 5:50:21 PM

Quote :

"One thing I'm not really clear about in this thread... what do self-described conservatives feel should be done, generally, with the environment? are you in favor of any sorts of cleaning technologies for waste discharge from industry? what sort of efforts should we be seeing for changing energy sources, when fossil fuel supplies eventually dwindle? are you 100% hands-off, or do you see government offering some guidance (if not regulation) here at all?"

What we need the government to do is what it seems to have given up on doing. The environmental movement has become distracted by global warming and stopped short the battle that was started in the 70s. Water pollution is still a serious problem that is going to get worse unless we fix the sources of pollution. First off, government-operated sewage plants get away with a whole lot of polluting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/us/23sewer.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=water%20pollution%20america&st=cse

So, what do conservatives think the government should do here? The last thing it should be doing is taking advantage of its sovereign protection against lawsuits to pollute rivers and lakes. And why do city buses and trains get a free pass from the clean air act? Why does the clean air act still not apply to power plants built before the 1970s? Vast amounts of pollution is emitted from so called grandfather plants that are inefficient, dirty, and costly to maintain, but are profitable only because of special government exemptions.

Peak Oil is nothing to worry about. There is no "tragedy of the commons" in Peak Oil, so it will work out fine as everyone pursues their own interests. If the oil supply is dwindling then the price will rise, driving exploration for more oil and conservation of the oil we have. I see no benefit from changing the system to make energy company revenues derive more from government largess and less from serving customers.

12/4/2009 6:41:52 PM

Quote :

"However, the scientific link between greenhouse gasses and temperature increase is basic enough for anyone to understand and therefore the logical assumption that reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the long term is beneficial to the planet isn't a huge leap of scientific faith. "

hahaha, wow.

12/4/2009 7:13:46 PM

I'll bite...what's wow about that statement?

12/5/2009 8:47:10 AM

I think just about every fallacy described in logic 101 is contained in that statement.

12/5/2009 9:02:56 AM

"hahaha, wow." = "You have a logic error."

OK, got it.

12/5/2009 9:23:29 AM

MSNBC.com has a terrific slide show this morning of some photojournalism done in Canada, relating to removing oil from some of the rocky soil, and it's effects on the natural environment in the local area:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34115191/ns/news-picture_stories/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1

A few highlights (see the link for some photo descriptions):







[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 9:53 AM. Reason : didn't realize those photos were going to grow so large, sorry!]

12/5/2009 9:52:18 AM

Since it is now acceptable to post pictures of isolated parts of the environment to prove that the entire environment is being destroyed, I will post pictures that prove that the earth is actually doing just fine.

12/5/2009 10:08:55 AM

Congrats on missing my point. I was encouraging people to look at the link. But fine, assume the photos are the ONLY reason I posted. Thanks for playing villify-the-poster.

12/5/2009 10:10:22 AM

Quote :

"relating to removing oil from some of the rocky soil, and it's effects on the natural environment in the local area:"

Quote :

"Since it is now acceptable to post pictures of isolated parts of the environment to prove that the entire environment is being destroyed, "

Quote :

"hahaha, wow."

12/5/2009 10:14:24 AM

I don't care that he said local... the implication when you post such things in a thread about the GLOBAL environment is obvious.

12/5/2009 10:29:55 AM

If it exists, it's because of many contributions made on a local level. You can't act like local things don't have a larger impact.

12/5/2009 10:33:13 AM

Exactly, and in that vein of thought, one should not act as if accumulated urban heat islands and land use changes on a global scale did not play a role in some of the observed warming.

12/5/2009 11:27:55 AM

look guys, if I light a cigarette with a hand-held lighter, that will increase CO2 emissions. Does that mean that Congress should write a law speficially banning me and only me from lighting cigs? no.

its a question of scale. no one argues that some human activity releases CO2 and no one argues that CO2 has an impact on the climate. The question is, how much?

12/5/2009 1:11:25 PM

Quote :

"Does that mean that Congress should write a law speficially banning me and only me from lighting cigs? no."

Don't think they won't try, not with the roll they're on now.

12/5/2009 1:33:37 PM

In order to put Solinari out of my misery ITT, I will post some happy-pretty-yay photos:

http://www.glacierparkmagazine.com/100_days_in_Glacier_National_Park/100daysinGlacierNationalPark.html

This is a really fun read, regardless of your political affiliation. Enjoy!


Hello, hooksaw!





[Edited on December 6, 2009 at 10:32 AM. Reason : img]

12/6/2009 10:32:17 AM

Quote :

"The Metropolitan Police in London said that about 20,000 people had joined the Stop Climate Chaos march on Saturday. Organizers, which included groups like Oxfam, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and W.W.F., estimated the turnout to have been about 40,000."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/world/europe/07iht-protest.html

Wow, the brits are like our polar opposites.

We had about 40,000 people during the 9/12 protests, but our population is also 5x more. For the record, there was 100,000 protesters for gay rights here a bit after the 9/12 protests too.

12/6/2009 11:01:46 AM

optimum wins. he successfully posted 100% of the evidence needed to show the earth has been irreversibly destroyed

12/6/2009 7:55:12 PM

oh, hi pack_fudge! welcome back!

12/6/2009 8:20:48 PM

Quote :

"However, the scientific link between greenhouse gasses and temperature increase is basic enough for anyone to understand and therefore the logical assumption that reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the long term is beneficial to the planet isn't a huge leap of scientific faith. "

Only, it's not. That's kind of the reason there is actually debate on this.

12/6/2009 9:49:24 PM

^seriously, lol at that quote. Or rather cry at that quote

12/7/2009 10:46:03 AM

Quote :

" The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change. But they do hand a powerful political card to skeptics at the start of perhaps the most important environmental summit in history. Still don't know what to make of it? If you're struggling to untangle the details of the e-mail controversy, here are five key things you need to know: "

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082,00.html

12/8/2009 12:49:08 AM

The truth is that consensus only matters in politics and the court of law. It doesn't mean jack shit in science, especially when said consensus was forged through coercion and lies

12/8/2009 6:31:44 AM

Quote :

"oh, hi pack_fudge! welcome back!"

You're stepping on my toes, Poptehbum.

JK.

12/8/2009 6:42:22 AM

The opening video from the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38

Sweet Jesus--buffoonish alarmism is alive and well in Copenhagen! Somebody please embed this video so it can be seen by all for what it is: rubbish.

Run, little girl, run for your life!!!1

12/9/2009 7:59:13 AM

I saw a clip of it on the news this last night.

Scaremongering at its finest. From those bunch of idiots I expected nothing less.

12/9/2009 10:45:24 AM

The top person in the climatology field just chimed in on the debate in a Washington Post editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

12/9/2009 10:55:21 AM

Not a chance in hell she wrote that lol

12/9/2009 11:12:30 AM

^^she knows politics, and unfortunately about 90% of this is about politics. (I haven't read it yet)

140 scientists challenged the UN in an open letter today:

Quote :

"Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations His Excellency Ban Ki Moon Secretary-General, United Nations New York, NY United States of America 8 December 2009 Dear Secretary-General, Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled. Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena. We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation. Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that: 1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries; 2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate; 3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate; 4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities; 5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes; 6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past; 7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions; 8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes; 9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency; 10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends. It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so. "

If you want to see a list of the scientists follow this link (too long to post): http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM. Reason : k]

12/9/2009 11:12:37 AM

lol check this out

12/9/2009 12:34:23 PM

^ Run, little girl, run for your life! Don't let go of that tree limb!!!1

The ending is the clencher. The solution to "global warming"? Baby talk.

Who knew?

12/9/2009 12:41:25 PM