your fatal assumption is that "Environment" is totally encompassed by "Oil and Gas". You couldn't be any further from the truth.

Quote :

"I mean, pretend we don't have this "common sense" for a moment and use the data from this site to illustrate how "green lobbby outspends oil lobby" is justified."

that's your problem. I NEVER said that the green lobby outspends the oil lobby. I DID say that the green lobby outspends the oil lobby on environmental issues, specifically climate change. Learn to read.

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2012 2:16:21 PM

Quote :

"I don;t need to quote common knowledge."

Aaronburro makes assertion, is asked proof, cops out. Big surprise.

2/24/2012 2:18:17 PM

Quote :

"your fatal assumption is that "Environment" is totally encompassed by "Oil and Gas". You couldn't be any further from the truth. "

But I gave you the opportunity, and a website that compiles the data, to back up your claim. Tell me what other categories I should be looking at. I don't have any common knowledge of the comparative expenditures of lobbying industries.

2/24/2012 2:26:42 PM

Asking aaronburro to prove anything except "Is your own shit brown?" will fail since his only source of information is his ass.

2/24/2012 2:46:36 PM

Str8 has used a lot of anal references today I noticed

2/24/2012 9:49:27 PM

big threat here people...

3/2/2012 9:40:42 AM

Wait, are you trying to tell me that a bunch of federal agencies together spent more money on something than some think tank?

WOOOOOAAAAHHHHHH

3/2/2012 9:49:15 AM

The source document for that graph is here: www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2011/11pch15.pdf

It's curious that any and all money spent researching the climate at all = pro-global warming hoax conspiracy spending.

That the cost of actual research is even being compared to an advocacy group's budget is silly to begin with. We're talking about things like putting a satellite in orbit vs. compiling a powerpoint presentation.

What's especially silly is that these denialist advocacy groups typically draw on datasets from these government-funded programs just as the pro-AGW groups do.



[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

3/2/2012 10:46:33 AM

aha, you get actual facts thrown in your face and you ignore exactly what it means. you really think that oil spending 10million dwarfs the billions spent by the gov't? OK, let's assume all of that's not on climate change. What % would you think is a reasonable number? 10, 20% maybe? That number is STILL dwarfing what oil companies are spending. ergo, my point

3/2/2012 12:24:45 PM

^

3/2/2012 12:55:38 PM

Quote :

"you really think that oil spending 10million dwarfs the billions spent by the gov't? "

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01

The oil industry spends more than 130 million yearly on lobbying and candidates alone, that's not counting contributions to think tanks and advocacy groups (Of which Heartland institute is only one).

Quote :

"OK, let's assume all of that's not on climate change. What % would you think is a reasonable number? 10, 20% maybe? That number is STILL dwarfing what oil companies are spending. ergo, my point"

What percent of that goes to paying off the hundreds of climatologists backing up this hoax? Compared to the percentages that go to, say, scientific instruments like satellites?

Since the advocacy groups massage the same datasets (Heartland institute does not own its own satellites), it's pretty obvious a much higher proportion actually goes to paying people to say something, rather than actually research. Conducting science of any kind, even if you aren't paying off hundreds of scientists to lie, is way more expensive than just paying some people to lie.

And seriously...what's the end game again? Thousands of scientists teaming up with politicians to crash the global economy? What's the motive?

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2012 1:14:25 PM

Quote :

"you really think that oil spending 10million dwarfs the billions spent by the gov't? OK, let's assume all of that's not on climate change. What % would you think is a reasonable number? 10, 20% maybe?"

More SB quotes that are flatly incomprehensible, yay!

The government spends billions. Ok, yes, and I take it this is the billions on research, as mentioned in above posts. And you're trying to say that 10-20% of the federal government's research budget is going to climate change? Bravo.

3/2/2012 1:49:38 PM

pwnt.

3/2/2012 2:49:09 PM

Quote :

"The oil industry spends more than 130 million yearly on lobbying and candidates alone, that's not counting contributions to think tanks and advocacy groups (Of which Heartland institute is only one). "

do we have to say, AGAIN, that all of this lobbying doesn't go towards climate related stuff? why the fuck do I have to go in circles with you on every fucking thing we ever talk about?

^ considering that what I was referencing was someone's complaint that the numbers given were only with regard to spending on climate, get your head out of your ass and read it correctly.

Quote :

"And seriously...what's the end game again?"

what's the end game? a problem that needs solving which just happens to lead to more govt control over the economy. I don't think they need to pay scientists to "lie". They just need to make it clear that they have a vested interest in towing the gov't line, as we've already seen with the harassment of people who dare question the "consensus". meanwhile, other "scientists" are free to commit outright fraud and conspire to break the law, and no one cares, even going so far as to "clear" them of any wrongdoing, when the proof of their criminal acts are right there in the open.

3/2/2012 5:56:31 PM

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/energy-fact-of-the-week-we-spend-how-much-on-climate-research/

Quote :

"between 1993 and 2010 the federal government spent $31.3 billion on climate science research (an average of $1.8 billion a year), and another $42.9 billion on energy technology research"

I'm actually rather surprised that climate science research was that much.

3/3/2012 7:51:19 PM

That's because actual science (with instruments, laboratories, and computers) is more expensive than blogging.

3/5/2012 9:21:36 AM

Quote :

" why the fuck do I have to go in circles with you on every fucking thing we ever talk about?"

You? Lol. Okay burro. How many times now have we gone from you saying "there is no warming" to "it's not significant warming" to "its actually cooling since 20XX" to "it's warming but its the sun" to "it's warming and it's us but we can't change it" to "its a hoax by the scientists, the warming that is, i mean the models, i mean the NOAA itself." back it "there is no warming" ? You've made an utter joke of yourself over and over and over in this thread because you actually don't know a goddamn thing about the climate, academic research, government grant programs, peer review, basic fucking chemistry, or any of the other requisite topics here.

You come in here because you have an opinion that is basically "Liberals are wrong about every thing. Climate is a thing. Therefore liberals are wrong about it and if I throw enough shit at the wall eventually something will stick right? That one didn't work? Okay I'll try this one that they already rebutted 5 times already. Heeeere we go!"

Like goddamn sorry but I really can't feel bad anymore for spending minimal effort on you anymore, you've demonstrated you aren't worth it, at all. Now you're boo hooing I didn't separate "climate change specific" stuff from the lobbying (Which isn't how lobbying works, btw), after posting a graph comparing all of Federal funding for climate research with the heartland institute's budget as though that means shit. If you applied 1/50th of the scrutiny you attempted to apply to anything a liberal says to something out of your own mouth, you'd have hung yourself by now for shame.


[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM. Reason : .]

3/5/2012 9:26:38 AM

You? Lol. Okay burro. How many times now have we gone from you saying "there is no warming" to "it's not significant warming" to "its actually cooling since 20XX" to "it's warming but its the sun" to "it's warming and it's us but we can't change it" to "its a hoax by the scientists, the warming that is, i mean the models, i mean the NOAA itself." back it "there is no warming" ? You've made an utter joke of yourself over and over and over in this thread because you actually don't know a goddamn thing about the climate, academic research, government grant programs, peer review, basic fucking chemistry, or any of the other requisite topics here.

You come in here because you have an opinion that is basically "Liberals are wrong about every thing. Climate is a thing. Therefore liberals are wrong about it and if I throw enough shit at the wall eventually something will stick right? That one didn't work? Okay I'll try this one that they already rebutted 5 times already. Heeeere we go!"

Like goddamn sorry but I really can't feel bad anymore for spending minimal effort on you anymore, you've demonstrated you aren't worth it, at all. Now you're boo hooing I didn't separate "climate change specific" stuff from the lobbying (Which isn't how lobbying works, btw), after posting a graph comparing all of Federal funding for climate research with the heartland institute's budget as though that means shit. If you applied 1/50th of the scrutiny you attempted to apply to anything a liberal says to something out of your own mouth, you'd have hung yourself by now for shame.

3/9/2012 2:32:41 PM

Quote :

"How many times now have we gone from you saying ..."

ummm, pretty much never? exactly

Quote :

"Now you're boo hooing I didn't separate "climate change specific" stuff from the lobbying "

considering that was my actual claim, then it merits pointing out how you were, in fact, comparing apples to oranges. yet when I do so, that's "boo hooing." Kind of like pointing out that a study that gives the same results when you plug in phone numbers verses temperature proxies is "boo hooing".

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 6:09 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2012 6:08:38 PM

Oh eat shit. You didn't separate out "climate change hoaxery" from fucking weather satellites. Tell me, is studying climate at all inherently pro-AGW-hoax? Perhaps we should look to scripture...

3/12/2012 9:28:51 AM

yeh buddy eat shit! you pwn3d that nonbeliever asshole!

3/12/2012 11:38:57 AM

Quote :

"Nearly 11 feet of snow has fallen on Anchorage, Alaska, this winter. That's almost a record, and it's forcing the city to haul away at least 250,000 tons of snow. Yet not much snow has dropped on the Lower 48 this year. The first three months of 2012 have seen twice the normal number of tornadoes. And 36 states set daily high temperature records Thursday. So far this month, the U.S. has set 1,757 daily high temperature records. That's similar to the number during last summer's heat wave, said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://news.yahoo.com/weird-weather-heat-twisters-250k-tons-snow-205518988.html "

Perfectly normal, perfectly natural

3/16/2012 10:44:14 PM

welcom to La Niña. holy shit. welcome to reality.

but yeh....

its not natural bro



[Edited on March 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM. Reason : 9]

3/17/2012 9:23:16 AM

La Nina is a cooling phenomenon, pack_bryan, not a warming one. You're thinking of El Nino.

3/18/2012 11:33:39 AM

La Nina actually has had a lot to do with the mild winter experienced by most of the US this year. NASA themselves blamed it on La Nina, along with strong Arctic Oscillations keeping the cold air way up north.

Quote :

""we are experiencing a La Niña pattern of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. This pushes the jet stream and the cold arctic air northward." "On top of that, this year's Arctic Oscillation has been stronger." "

Link here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/17jan_missingsnow/



[Edited on March 21, 2012 at 12:12 AM. Reason : k]

3/21/2012 12:11:27 AM

Why might recent la nina is more pronounced that normal?

3/21/2012 7:59:04 AM

I believe the Pacific has been cooler than usual, leading this La Nina to have a more noticeable influence on weather patterns. Kind of like how the Pacific was hotter than usual for the very strong El Nino of '97-98.

3/21/2012 8:50:08 AM

Quote :

"Along with arctic oscillation."

Quote :

"Why might recent la nina is more pronounced that normal?"

La Nina years have the overall effect of lower temperatures on their own. This warm year is happening in spite of La Nina due to the second strongest AO in over 100 years.



http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2012/01/12/why-this-winter-is-so-crazily-warm/



[Edited on March 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM. Reason : ..]

3/21/2012 9:37:47 AM

Quite right, sorry if I conveyed something in a way I didn't intend.

3/21/2012 3:40:43 PM

Did they ever prove whether or not this stuff was real?

3/21/2012 10:24:39 PM

Yes.


It is.

3/22/2012 3:04:31 AM

^^No they have not

3/22/2012 8:34:28 AM

^^^ Depends on if you mean "scientifically demonstrate with hypothesis testing and estimation" or "prove from a logical set of axioms".

I'll let you decide which is appropriate for natural science, but the reasonable answer is "yes" supposing your internal emotions aren't wired by the commercial propaganda you grew up immersed in

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:15 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 9:15:37 AM

so we are bombarded by 10^10^100^100 watts of pure burning energy and it's hitting a maximum of solar wind/coronal mass ejections/ temperature etc for the last 400 years...

i know i'm asking to be burned like a witch by the liberal church members on this board... but flame away assholes!

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM. Reason : ,]

3/22/2012 9:45:40 AM

Not sure if you noticed this on the very graph you just posted, but sun activity's been dropping for more than 35 years while temperatures continue to climb at faster rates.



In 2009, the Sun was the coolest it'd been in a century while the Earth was the hottest it'd been in the entire temperature record.



In fact, all throughout the dataset the solar activity and temperature quite often move in opposite directions. It's almost as though there's something at play besides the sun...


[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 9:50:23 AM

well shit i guess we have to abandon technology and go back to pure survival of the fittest.


or we can pollute just a little bit more while we drive innovation and build something to cure this shit.


hmm. choices choices.



[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 10:29 AM. Reason : .-]

3/22/2012 10:22:35 AM

Yes, maybe someday innovation will build something like, say, a global network of temperature monitoring satellites and weather stations that could warn us when our industrial outputs are having dangerous consequences on the climate. Perhaps innovation in physics and chemistry will enable us to figure out exactly which outputs are the cause, and using that knowledge we can limit those outputs to more sustainable levels.



[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 10:34:14 AM

^^So was that an admission that you were wrong regarding AGW or just a snarky comment to deflect?

3/22/2012 10:35:10 AM

Actually the earth's hottest year (since satellite data became common) was 1998. 2009, yeah I bet.



Also it should be noted that none of these recent posts had a shred of evidence that man was the cause for the rise in temp over the last 30 years.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM. Reason : d]

3/22/2012 12:10:36 PM

My bad, was actually 2010, not 2009. If you took the El Nino out of 1998 then all of the top 10 hottest years would have been in the last decade. Even with El Nino, 2010 was hotter.

Quote :

"Also it should be noted that none of these recent posts had a shred of evidence that man was the cause for the rise in temp over the last 30 years."

It should be noted that you have no idea what constitutes evidence and are generally ignorant on this issue as a whole.

Here's the evidence in a nutshell

1. The last 100 years have shown a clear warming trend far in excess of natural cycles that we're aware of. That warming trend exists in rural areas, urban areas, and the oceans.

2. Even if natural cycles could explain such a fast warming, none of the cycle we know of would actually account for the pattern of warming, and in fact many (Such as the Sun) are actually moving in a direction that should result in cooling.

3. We know because of fucking physics and chemistry that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases heat entrapment.

4. Since industrialization, we've more than doubled the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

So in other words, we have warming, very clear warming, that happens to line up perfectly with rising CO2, which we know increases warming roughly in the proportions we're witnessing. No other natural forces that we know of are causing the warming.

What exactly what qualify as "evidence" to you, TKE? Seriously, what empirical evidence would convince you?


[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 12:13:53 PM

Quote :

"That warming trend exists in rural areas*,"

*after we average in urban temperatures into their data sets and then hide all the raw data so that no one can show what we are doing.

3/22/2012 1:11:16 PM

Nope, the trend exists independently in both rural and urban areas when the data points are isolated from each other.











[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 1:34:56 PM

he says as he posts numbers of adjusted temperatures, where, as I said, the urban temperatures are averaged into the rural ones.

3/22/2012 1:35:39 PM

No, they are not, if you look above I've posted a litany of data sets for which urban and rural stations were separated, and the warming trend is apparent in every one for every subdivision.

And seriously, aaronburro, has the 7-page cycle completed already? Are you already back on "There is no warming." again? That means we're just a few posts away from "It's the Sun!" again.


[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 1:37:59 PM

Haha some of those graphs are so tightly correlated they remind me of the graphs of the fed funds target rate vs. fed funds effective rate

bond vigilantes, climate change, doesn't matter what it is. if it's inconvenient, i'm gonna ignore it; and the data i'll dismiss as simply "throwing charts at me".

Like how fucking overwhelming does the data have to be

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 1:53:58 PM

well this is great guys.. now that this is out of the way.... what are we gonna call it?

we could call it #1 "The war on against electricity and engines" since obviously those are the main issues here. (let's say a good majority of the carbon which is responsible for the heat issues comes from those sources)

or we could call it #2 "The war against the human population" since less humans would cure #1

we'll set up laws and policies that discourage birthing more humans in families and prevent it. then we can try to kill the oil/coal/nuclear/gas industries as their demand falls.



anybody got any better ideas?

3/22/2012 3:36:30 PM

You could also call it the war against personal freedom, as controlling and heavily regulating energy basically gives you endless power over the civilian population.

3/22/2012 3:42:11 PM

Quote :

"No, they are not, if you look above I've posted a litany of data sets for which urban and rural stations were separated, and the warming trend is apparent in every one for every subdivision."

yes. they are. you are using adjusted numbers. Do you know how the numbers are "adjusted"? Right, by averaging in temperatures from other locations. Guess what numbers they average in to rural ones? Yes, urban ones. That they then show a plot of "rural temps" and "urban temps" separately doesn't change the fact that the adjustments, themselves, make the two basically the same measurement.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/

Then again, when you have adjustments to the temperature made as so

then it's not hard to really wonder why people question the adjustments

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2012 3:43:35 PM

being human #1 first and foremost is anti-green and pollutes... i mean humans themselves pollute. your body causes an imbalance of air borne chemicals around you as well as your disgusting shitting/skin tissue/and other excrements.

the stuff we invent that pollutes is just icing on the cake.


if you weren't such pussies about being eco-friendly and stopping global warming we could solve this...

real eco-liberals would go down guns blazing murdering as many humans as you could before you took your own life to save the planet.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ,]

3/22/2012 3:47:06 PM

Quote :

"yes. they are. you are using adjusted numbers.Do you know how the numbers are "adjusted"? Right, by averaging in temperatures from other locations. Guess what numbers they average in to rural ones? Yes, urban ones. That they then show a plot of "rural temps" and "urban temps" separately doesn't change the fact that the adjustments, themselves, make the two basically the same measurement."

Look again:

Quote :

"http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/"

First, this "study" does not use raw data, just a bit of it. Specifically, it uses 1 rural and 1 urban station from each of the 48 contiguous states. Why this bizarre sampling limitation? Why not consistent geographical divisions? Why restrict the research to the US alone?

So that paper uses a total of 96 data points selected by Long. The NDCC uses over 101,000 separate weather stations http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/

So why did a "researcher" so intent on using "raw data" throw out literally 99.9% of the data points? Why does Rhode Island's 1,200 k square miles get the same number of samples as Texas's 290,000 square miles? Is there any explanation besides Edward Long cooking a big, fat cherry pie?

If that's not fishy enough, consider the publisher, the Science and Public Policy Institute, headed by Bob Fergusson, who the year before founding it was head of the Republican think tank Center for Science and Public Policy, funded in part by Exxon Mobil, and former chief of staff of three Republican congressmen?

So now, tell me, where are all the cities creating all this heat in the Arctic circle, Greenland, Siberia, Alaska, Central Africa, The Sahara Desert, the Gobi Desert?



There aren't any, and if you look at the map, you'll see the warming is least pronounced along the Eastern Seaboard of the USA, which coincidentally has a shitload of tiny states, as compared to the more pronounced warming in the Western US, which has a handful of very large states? How do you think sampling 2 stations per state is effected by this? Why do you think he chose to exclude Alaska?

I'll give you credit, aaronburro, this is the closest thing you've put forth that resembles credible research, but the methodology is pretty transparently geared to cherry pick by under-representing warmer areas and over-representing those that have experienced the least change, not to mention choosing the US, which has been relatively stable compared to the rest of the world in terms of temperature change.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 5:11:48 PM