^ Well, I admit that Levin's a bit "nasally" and his tone can be a bit sharp at times--but he never made me nauseated. I think his position is similar to mine (I don't listen every day) in that he is all for taking care of the environment; he's just not for just handing over more control of our lives to far-left loons who can't be trusted with it--you know, the eco-Marxists.

And it looks like people are really worried about the horror that is "global warming":

POLL: FEWER BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING
October 22, 2009

Quote :

"Even as major climate change legislation moves through Congress, fewer voters believe global warming is a very serious problem -- or even think there is solid evidence of it -- a new Pew Research survey finds. And action on the environment has slipped even further down voters' lists of policy priorities for the president, although a majority would not oppose regulations limiting carbon emissions. According to the poll, 35% of respondents said global warming was a serious problem, down from 44% in April 2008. Even starker is the increase in voters' skepticism: Only 57% said they believe there is solid evidence that earth's average temperature has increased over the past few decades, compared with 71% who said that last year -- a 14-point drop. Also, just 36% said increases in global temperatures are the result of human activity, which was down from 47% last year. Along political lines, global warming was the lowest-rated priority for both independents and Republicans, and was 16th among Democrats out of 20 issues."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/22/2106228.aspx

Yeah, this is a great issue, Democrats--to get you booted out of office--keep it up.

[Edited on October 23, 2009 at 5:12 AM. Reason : Yeah, yeah, I know. . .IT'S 'CAUSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID!!!1 ]

10/23/2009 5:11:04 AM

^ If people don’t care about climate change, they won’t care about climate change legislation, especially if it’s the right thing to do:

Quote :

"In advance of that hearing, a collection of 18 US scientific organizations has sent an open letter to members of the Senate, reminding them that climate change is a real phenomenon, and the best available evidence indicates it's being driven by human activities. The unusually blunt language is coupled with an offer: the US scientific community stands ready to provide assistance to anyone who is looking for further information in advance of taking legislative action."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/scientific-societies-warn-senate-climate-change-is-real.ars

10/23/2009 9:06:40 AM

I love how they are demanding legislation. How very scientific of them. Did they even bother to offer any evidence for their claims? Cause they sure have failed to do so up to now

10/23/2009 2:19:11 PM

Quote :

" If people don’t care about climate change, they won’t care about climate change legislation, especially if it’s the right thing to do"

What a dumb statement to make. People won't mind legislation that let's the government have more say in what they do? Won't mind legislation that lowers their standard of living? Won't mind legislation that puts our country at an economic disadvantage with other countries? Won't mind legislation that will cost millions of Americans their jobs?

Sounds great!

10/24/2009 9:37:19 PM

^ The eco-Marxists don't even care. When they're proven wrong about global warming/climate change, they'll still say their madness was the right thing to do because it raised awareness and/or that "deniers" opposed legislation for the wrong reasons--even though they were right.

Mark my words.

10/24/2009 9:47:47 PM

Quote :

"eco-Marxists"

There's that word again. Since I am fairly confident you will use it ad nauseam can you clearly define it for me and all the folks at home?

10/24/2009 11:02:36 PM

Ecology + Marxists = eco-Marxists

10/24/2009 11:14:55 PM

Thanks. . . " "

10/24/2009 11:17:47 PM

NP

10/24/2009 11:27:00 PM

Well hell, after a brief google search it seems that eco-Marxism is a real concept and not just a cute buzzword from the right like "enviro-nazi". Curious. Just be mindful not to try and blanket purveyors of environmental prudence with the term.

10/24/2009 11:39:01 PM

^ Fair enough.



BTW, where are all the giant, powerful hurricanes that the doomsday prophets told us were coming? Look, Al Gore is still trying to scare the shit out of everybody with hurricane images.

11/3/2009 11:50:52 PM

Umm, did you see the Pacific Ocean this season? 20 named storms (15.3 average), 8 hurricanes (8.8 average, 5 major hurricanes (4.2 average). So in all an above average season. Just because the Atlantic hurricane season was sadly a dud thanks to El Niño doesn't mean the season was a loss.

11/4/2009 12:15:55 AM

sadly

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 12:17 AM. Reason : that is classic]

11/4/2009 12:17:26 AM

^^ I take it that you meant "sadly" because you're a meteorologist and like significant weather events?



But could Gore just stop with the hyperbolic hurricane imagery already? The link between climate change and hurricanes has been debunked, has it not?

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 12:24 AM. Reason : BTW, it looks like the United States is on fire in the image above, too. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! ]

11/4/2009 12:22:46 AM

You're both damn right I said sadly.

11/4/2009 12:29:46 AM

^ It's because you like weather events, though, right?

11/4/2009 12:39:09 AM

Why else would it be?

11/4/2009 12:46:20 AM

^ Just checking--I'm not a mind reader.

11/4/2009 12:47:01 AM

No no no, you aren't just walking away like that. You asked the question with the possibility of more than one potential outcome in mind. Spill the beans.

11/4/2009 12:48:50 AM

Quote :

"Just because the Atlantic hurricane season was sadly a dud"

You're sad that there were less hurricanes than predicted? Way to bypass all common sense in favor of supporting the AGW hypothesis.

Please spill the beans as to your reasoning for this idiotically retarded statement.

11/4/2009 12:49:17 AM

^^ Um. . .the fact that many possibilities exist is self-evident. I listed the one that I thought was most probable.

I simply wanted to clarify the record. What's your beef?

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 12:50 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2009 12:50:39 AM

Actually, I could care less about supporting any AGW hypothesis. My desire for hurricanes goes well beyond these petty trifles.

11/4/2009 12:52:19 AM

^ Your "desire"? Are you playing some sort of word games here?

11/4/2009 12:53:44 AM

Okay, my desire to experience hurricanes. Better now?

11/4/2009 12:54:25 AM

When unsure of the validity of your position, troll / use sarcasm

11/4/2009 12:55:12 AM

How many of you idiots are able to properly analyze a data set?

How many data sets have you actually gone about analyzing?

11/4/2009 12:56:09 AM

What, exactly, are you implying that I am unsure of? I was simply clarifying the language for him.

11/4/2009 12:56:18 AM

How many of you idiots think a 100 year data set can properly extrapolate to a 5,000,000,000 year old system?

Just like correlation != causation, SKEPTICISM != DISBELIEF

11/4/2009 12:58:55 AM

I repeat my question

Feel free to repeat yours, but adjust your stats balls accordingly

11/4/2009 1:00:39 AM

^ Are you saying that climate change is linked hurricanes? Yes or no?

11/4/2009 1:02:09 AM

I'm still waiting for him to tell me what I am supposedly unsure of.

11/4/2009 1:02:15 AM

^just didnt know why else you'd resort to 100% sarcasm unless it was because you couldnt back up your viewpoint

I've analyzed data sets. It was a requirement of my degree.

Now what does that have to do with being skeptical of:

100
____________
5000000000

11/4/2009 1:02:50 AM

Quote :

"^ Are you saying that climate change is linked hurricanes? Yes or no?"

What the fuck makes you think I'm saying that?

I'm asking if any of you know how to analyze a data set, and how many data sets you've actually analyzed. A ballpark figure would do the trick

Quote :

"Now what does that have to do with being skeptical of: 100 ____________ 5000000000"

You brought it up, not me. I'm simply asking what statistical qualifications anybody has in this thread seeing as how critically reading a climate study demands precisely this.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 1:03 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2009 1:02:56 AM

so Stat Genius (aka McDanger), how confident would you be in the reliability of a statistical analysis of a data set when the set was only representative of 0.000002 % of the life of the system?

11/4/2009 1:05:01 AM

I don't really know the sorts of evidence they're using to draw their inferences as I haven't read the majority of these papers (which is why i withhold judgment on the FOTD arguments over various minutiae).

We have not a lot of direct observations given the length of the planet but iirc they bolster this with various indirect measures of temperature in the past

Edit: It also depends on the memory of the system.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2009 1:07:43 AM

I, too, withhold judgments, which is why I'm skeptical that a look at the most recent 0.000002% of the planet's average temperature measurements are a strong argument that co2 emissions are causing catastrophic planetary problems that require drastic action

11/4/2009 1:10:59 AM

I don't know about anybody else, McDouche, but I have no intention of playing your stupid little game. What does it have to do with anything, fuckstick?

FTR, I took college-level algebra, math, and statistics--but I'm no statistician. You have not proved that one needs to be a statistician or advanced mathematician to (1) hold an opinion on climate change and (2) read plain English related to alleged climate change.

This is the fucking point of me BTTT this thread--I'll spell it out very clearly since you've apparently gone Rain Man on us--Al Gore continues to use hyperbolic imagery to scare people into accepting his fallacious positions, even though, for example, the connection between climate change and hurricanes has been debunked. Now, would you like to punch that into your data field or what, asshole?

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 1:17 AM. Reason : Can you hear me now?]

11/4/2009 1:11:49 AM

Quote :

"FTR, I took college-level algebra, math, and statistics--but I'm no statistician. You have not proved that one needs to be a statistician or advanced mathematician to (1) hold an opinion on climate change and (2) read plain English related to alleged climate change. "

Here's a shocker for you: a lot of science is fudged and a lot of scientific summaries by various organizations are fudged. How the fuck do you intend to critically read a paper that is solely reporting on and analyzing a dataset without any statistical competence? How do you have any idea that pundits on either side are telling you the truth?

Quote :

"This is the fucking point of me BTTT this thread--I'll spell it out very clearly since you've apparently gone Rain Man on us--Al Gore continues to use hyperbolic imagery to scare people into accepting his fallacious positions, even though, for example, the connection between climate change and hurricanes has been debunked. Now, would you like to punch that into your data field or what, asshole?"

You seem pretty angry why don't you take that energy and learn some statistics

11/4/2009 1:18:30 AM

^ Why don't you address the current topic instead of trying to derail the discussion with your buffoonery? The subject is Al Gore's hyperbolic imagery being used to support a specific fallacious position that has been posted--and go. . . .

*Crickets*

But, but you're not as smart as me. Math! Ahaaa--it'll save everyone of us!

Oh, Mother Numbers, I worship thee over the pagan Christian god--rise up and pwnt all who oppose me!


[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 1:26 AM. Reason : :smug:]

11/4/2009 1:24:09 AM

How big of an idiot are you? This is how you react when I ask if you're qualified to analyze a data set? lol.

11/4/2009 1:25:34 AM

Quote :

"^ Why don't you address the current topic instead of trying to derail the discussion with your buffoonery? The subject is Al Gore's hyperbolic imagery being used to support a specific fallacious position that has been posted--and go. . . . *Crickets*"

11/4/2009 1:27:00 AM

What's wrong with injecting a reality check into a GW thread?

Are you really this touchy when I asked a basic question about your abilities? lol

11/4/2009 1:29:09 AM

Quote :

"^ Why don't you address the current topic instead of trying to derail the discussion with your buffoonery? The subject is Al Gore's hyperbolic imagery being used to support a specific fallacious position that has been posted--and go. . . . *Crickets*"

11/4/2009 1:34:01 AM

So is this a 60 page thread about exactly the same topic or are we allowed to discuss directly related issues?

11/4/2009 1:36:20 AM

^ Are you always this evasive when confronted with a straightforward topic of discussion?

Quote :

"^ Why don't you address the current topic instead of trying to derail the discussion with your buffoonery? The subject is Al Gore's hyperbolic imagery being used to support a specific fallacious position that has been posted--and go. . . . *Crickets*"

11/4/2009 1:39:03 AM

I'm done wasting time with you, little troll.

11/4/2009 1:44:47 AM

^ Are you always this evasive when confronted with a straightforward topic of discussion?

Quote :

"Why don't you address the current topic instead of trying to derail the discussion with your buffoonery? The subject is Al Gore's hyperbolic imagery being used to support a specific fallacious position that has been posted--and go. . . . *Crickets*"

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 1:49 AM. Reason : I'm not a troll and I'm not little--I wear a size 13 boot. If I ever meet you, I'll show it to you.]

11/4/2009 1:45:18 AM

Cruise ship with 100 tourists stuck in Antarctica (AP)
9 hours ago

Quote :

"MOSCOW — A Russian shipping company says one of its cruise ships carrying over 100 tourists, scientists and journalists is stuck in the ice around Antarctica. German Kuzin of the Fareastern Shipping Company says the Captain Khlebnikov icebreaker and the tourists onboard aren't in any danger. He told Russia's Vesti 24 television on Tuesday that the ship is waiting for a stronger wind to try to begin moving again. He said the icebreaker is about 5 miles (8 kilometers) from clear water. Kuzin said the tourists are using the unplanned stop to tour the surrounding area. Russian news agencies say a BBC camera crew is among the passengers."

http://tinyurl.com/ygqg2hu

The ice looks pretty solid there.

11/17/2009 5:29:20 PM

Why did you post an article about a ship stuck in ice? That is one of the most boring, irrelevant things you could have possibly posted.

11/17/2009 5:47:02 PM

Probably the same reason you posted a link in the Global Warming thread about how Greenland was losing ice

11/17/2009 5:48:27 PM