Global Warming Debate ???

[MsTerry]

Huh? MsTerry, what the Hel are you talking about?

You need solar power to have compressed air and hydrogen.


you do????
please explain


What is this about "limited lifecycle?" PV panels that are now 50 years old are producing power at near new levels. New panels are guaranteed to produce at rated power for 25 years.Are you saying that all panels will last 50 or more years?
https://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar_used.html
nothing about 50 year olds



Solar power is now, is financially viable and is working all over the world, including here.
-Jeff It is still a major expense, materially and monetary speaking.

[Braggi]

... [solar power] is still a major expense, materially and monetary speaking.

But it's a whole lot cheaper than war.

Can you imagine if we had invested the trillion dollars the Iraq war has cost in alternative energy sources? We wouldn't need to import much oil. We'd already be a long way down the road to sustainability.

Nothing is more expensive than fossil fuels. Nothing except nuclear.

-Jeff

[taishon]

The decision theoretic argument, a risk analysis argument, that we better do something about it soon does not depend on high degree in confidence of the current explanation. As I mentioned before I think Greg Craven has articulated that argument well.

See <http: newsnet.byu.edu="" story.cfm="" 67503="">https://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/67503 and search for his videos on YouTube.

The key issue is the residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

https://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/4/48/Carbon_Dioxide_Residence_Time.png/370px-Carbon_Dioxide_Residence_Time.png

See https://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_Residence_Time_png

That means that independent of whether you or I are right about how well established the conclusion of human caused (fossil fuel burning) global heating is, acting as if it were correct is advised if you accept the analysis of this residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It will be too late to turn the boat - barren new technologies to remove CO2 quickly from the atmosphere - by the time we have satisfied your level of confidence.

Since there are a number of other reasons to stop increasing CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere (such as acidification of oceans; such as Peak Oil and move long term investments in fossil fuel sources to more sustainable sources) the course of action advocated by the "Al Gores" in the world is the reasonable one.



Zeno- for a throurough criticism of Greg Caven and his infamous video look at https://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/reponse-to-greg.html
The link also gives some interesting analysis on the dangers of making drastic decisions based on a faulty assumptions about GW. Basically, Greg (who is a high school teacher and probably cannot be remotely considered a climate expert) makes a bunch of bad assumptions (CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic changes and there is a 'factual' positive feedback mechanism and CO2 follows an exponential curve even though the science seems to indicate a logarithmic one etc etc). He claims to do a cost benefit analysis but resorts to insurance analogies and such without actually doing a cost summary. Classic case of using graphs with built in shaky assumptions to bring about alarmism in a misleading way.

Zeno, I am surprised that you have denigrated the use of videos and non-journal sources as references yet you are using a video (by a non-climatologist..really just a 'populizer' in your parlance) backed up by a wiki of the carbon residence time. I appreciate the references just wish you would be less hypocritical.


A personal side note: there has been a far amount of 'anti-Taishon' sentiment on this forum lately and its been an interesting, if tedious, social experiment. The claim has been that I am rude or obnoxious when I have only been insulting when I have counter-insulted in response to an original insult (and mild at that). I've responded to every counter argument to my skepticism (provided the signal to noise ratio was at least 50%) in an open reasonable way. I really do want to know if my skepticisms and downright disgust is merited and am fully willing to listen to any reasonable response. Instead of rational debate I've gotten a fair amount of playground banter. The only person who has come remotely close to challenging my skepticism has been Zeno, but even he has resorted to the occasional personal insult and hypocritical response. I have frequently conceded many points when reasonably, rationally presented and will be the first to shout from a soap box that the world is doomed should my skeptcism be shown even somewhat invalid.

Sal

</http:>

[Braggi]

... I have frequently conceded many points when reasonably, rationally presented and will be the first to shout from a soap box that the world is doomed should my skeptcism be shown even somewhat invalid.
</http:>

Sal, I have an appreciation for your passion, but it appears misdirected to me. Please answer me this: what is it that the GW proponents are hoping for that you are warning us against? I don't understand what you are hoping for by debunking the GW hype. You have mentioned the search for truth or something to that effect, but you seem to have an ax to grind that has not come out in this thread.

Once again I ask: what harm is there in promoting solar power? which, as far as I can see, is the major bottom line of the GW "agenda."

-Jeff

PS. I have to grin because my mind wants to add "Bush" every time I see GW.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Zeno, I am surprised that you have denigrated the use of videos and non-journal sources as references yet you are using a video (by a non-climatologist..really just a 'populizer' in your parlance) backed up by a wiki of the carbon residence time. I appreciate the references just wish you would be less hypocritical.

I'll need to look at some more scholarly references for you to chew on.

In the mean time, is it your position that uncertainty about global warming means that we should delay action?

More generally, that uncertainty about a possible threat means that we should delay action?

[taishon]

I'll need to look at some more scholarly references for you to chew on.

In the mean time, is it your position that uncertainty about global warming means that we should delay action?

More generally, that uncertainty about a possible threat means that we should delay action?

Of course not and I have never advocated not caring about the environment but, by putting the vast bulk of our efforts on Co2 emissions we are in danger of ignoring what may be the real causes, changing factors (such as lifestyle and social practices as well as industrial/economic) which may prove to be much more catastrophic and immediately threatening. The "either this or that" argument always seems to rear its ugly head in that if you are a GW skeptic you can't be for doing things that are environmentally sound. I would be very happy if the price of oil slowely creeps up to the point where alternatives (counting R&D making the infrastructure) become attractive and dollar viable (they generally are already viable when counting true costs). I am guessing that I have, personally, acted more to change my habits/lifestyle/environmental footprint than most AGW promoters (I hate the term carbon footprint since it ignores pollution and environemental practices as a whole).

Some more info to think about;


https://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041

Does a pretty good overall crticism of the CO2 causes GW argument

https://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

Does a pretty good job of continuing to talk about the CO2 angle and disusses the CO2 residence times.


Both sources talk the problems and dangers of concentrating only on
CO2 emissions.

Some things to think about;

1. CO2 residence times are highly debateble. CO2's solubility in the ocean depend very heavily on environmental factors. Atmospheric CO2 depends heavily on the solubility in the ocean (consider how much of the world surface is water).

2. The argument of the extra acidity in the ocean is based on fairly recent studies which have become more numerous based on the assumption of AGW..ie the AGW scare has caused more funding and interest in doing Oceean acidic strudies (one can draw a very loose analogy to whether CO2 drives GW or vice versa here). Ocean acidity can easily be accounted for, at least at local scales, by direct pollutuion and dumping of industrial/societal waste.

Sal

[taishon]

Sal, I have an appreciation for your passion, but it appears misdirected to me. Please answer me this: what is it that the GW proponents are hoping for that you are warning us against? I don't understand what you are hoping for by debunking the GW hype.
You have mentioned the search for truth or something to that effect, but you seem to have an ax to grind that has not come out in this thread.

Why is truth not enough ? For more reasons reread my replies or read my current reply to Zeno.

Once again I ask: what harm is there in promoting solar power? which, as far as I can see, is the major bottom line of the GW "agenda."

Once again, I answer..with some more detail. I don't think that the bottom line of the AGW agenda (notice the A added...I am part of the GW 'agenda") is the promotion of Soalr Power, which is only one alterantive. The bottom line of the AGW "agenda" , in my opinion (yes..opinion but born out pretty well by the various sources I've perused) is about political, social, economical power/gain.


-Jeff

PS. I have to grin because my mind wants to add "Bush" every time I see GW.

Sal

[Zeno Swijtink]

I'll need to look at some more scholarly references for you to chew on.

In the mean time, is it your position that uncertainty about global warming means that we should delay action?

More generally, that uncertainty about a possible threat means that we should delay action?

See attached paper by economist Kenneth Arrow.

[taishon]

See attached paper by economist Kenneth Arrow.



I don't mean this to be a slam on Zeno and this is really just an opnionized editorial on my part but I want to link the term 'economist' to the Malvo highway shootings. Awhile back they had this highly public case of a string of highway shootings in Virginia. What I thought was interesting about the case was the fact that they used several prominent, highly paid FBI profilers to profile the likely stats of the shooter..most picked a single middle-aged disgruntled white dude. The actual result was a middle aged black dude and his young black protege. Economists tend to be like the profilers. They tend to come up with all sorts graphs, data to definitively pinpoint a likely social outcome and, more often then not, end up being pretty off (and often in disagreement with each other). Economic science is a social science backed by speculative graphs and equations that are subjective. I put economists and social scientists and psychologists in the same category- "soft scientists". I can think of very very few numbers in all three that are not very speculative, derived, or highly statistical (without well defined mechanisms). I remember arguing with my dad, who thought he would try day-trading. He subscribed and read all these economic journals that had all this pretty graphs but when I questioned how the graphs were derived he got pissed and claimed I did know Jack :0) His day trading has completly wiped out any legacy I might get (in fact, I may be supporting him soon). I consider economists a few steps above Astrologers. Both are good at obvious general trends but have a poor track record of predicting specific events and times (and often take credit for the few events they are right about in a sample of thousands). However, I do think business journals (such as Wall Street Journal and Business Weekly) have some excellent info and arguments in regards to subjects like GW. To be even more indirect and obtuse..I think that the best thing that could happen to human space exploration is the demise of the Space Shuttle and the 5 year suspension of government run space flights (the shuttle will be phased out 2010 and replaces by 2015 supposedly). During that time (and we are seeing it happen now) human spaceflight will be taken over by private entrepenuers. These entrepenuers (Branson, Ruttan etc), when told that only the government can do a human space program, respond by proving them wrong. In a lot of ways, any GW predictions will probably be countered by solutions provided by the commercial business community and their actions may not be driven by so-called data-driven science models but may prove the most effective and factual solutions.

End of Opinioned Rant,
Sal

[taishon]

Skeptic Magazine has an issue mainly devoted to the debate (its the first issue of this year I believe- it has the multitudes of polar bears floating on ice on the cover). The issue does a great job of deeply presenting the arguments I've put forth (in a better way than I have).

Penn and Teller's next episode of "BS" is on the green movement this Thursday. Although I tend to disagree with specific points on most of their episodes I think they do a good job of criticizing BS in a humorous and not strictly scientific way.

Some comments about GW models etc.

An interesting factoid out of the Skeptic magazine is that the Climate Circulation models have uncertainties (in the energy calculations) that are 10 times the actual proposed energy effects. The issue does a great job of outlining the confusion between accuracy and precision which is at the heart of the debate (many of the Climate models claim great precision while not dealing very well with the actual accuracy of its own assumptions). I highly suggest reading it.

CO2 residency times are based on purely Physics and Chemistry arguments. To my knowledge no one has radio tagged a CO2 molecule and tracked its time in the atmosphere for a century. The same Physics and Chemistry makes the argument that the residency times are highly dependent on the gas solubility in the oceans (which is highly energy dependent--raising temperatures can easily account for less solubility and higher CO2 release in the oceans rather than the other way around).

Here is the issue I have with Economist arguments about GW and what we should do about it. They tend to reduce the possible outcomes to two things - (1) AGW is correct and if we don't do something radical about it then worldwide devastation occurs (2) If AGW is wrong and we do something radical about it then we will suffer some economic and social problems. The models seems to indicate that the logical solution is to do what Gore seems to be currently proposing and implement some costly government driven radical energy plan. There is at least one other outcome that says that AGW may be wrong and if we use market driven forces to implement change in a moderate way then we are unlikely to suffer either the socio-economic issues of radical change nor the global doom scenario of AGW alarmists. There are actually many other outcomes based on AGW being both true and untrue.



Sal

[thewholetruth]

Thanks for your thoughts, Sal. I'm one who subscribes to GW being a natural phenomenon, upon which attempts to fix it will be a complete waste of time. Polluting the planet is worth coming against. GW? Not so much. We've got relational problems on the planet - abuse, neglect, personal maelstrom, identity crises to the max which can ALL be healed and solved - which I believe come before any action is taken toward the Imaginary GW Show.


Skeptic Magazine has an issue mainly devoted to the debate (its the first issue of this year I believe- it has the multitudes of polar bears floating on ice on the cover). The issue does a great job of deeply presenting the arguments I've put forth (in a better way than I have).

Penn and Teller's next episode of "BS" is on the green movement this Thursday. Although I tend to disagree with specific points on most of their episodes I think they do a good job of criticizing BS in a humorous and not strictly scientific way.

Some comments about GW models etc.

An interesting factoid out of the Skeptic magazine is that the Climate Circulation models have uncertainties (in the energy calculations) that are 10 times the actual proposed energy effects. The issue does a great job of outlining the confusion between accuracy and precision which is at the heart of the debate (many of the Climate models claim great precision while not dealing very well with the actual accuracy of its own assumptions). I highly suggest reading it.

CO2 residency times are based on purely Physics and Chemistry arguments. To my knowledge no one has radio tagged a CO2 molecule and tracked its time in the atmosphere for a century. The same Physics and Chemistry makes the argument that the residency times are highly dependent on the gas solubility in the oceans (which is highly energy dependent--raising temperatures can easily account for less solubility and higher CO2 release in the oceans rather than the other way around).

Here is the issue I have with Economist arguments about GW and what we should do about it. They tend to reduce the possible outcomes to two things - (1) AGW is correct and if we don't do something radical about it then worldwide devastation occurs (2) If AGW is wrong and we do something radical about it then we will suffer some economic and social problems. The models seems to indicate that the logical solution is to do what Gore seems to be currently proposing and implement some costly government driven radical energy plan. There is at least one other outcome that says that AGW may be wrong and if we use market driven forces to implement change in a moderate way then we are unlikely to suffer either the socio-economic issues of radical change nor the global doom scenario of AGW alarmists. There are actually many other outcomes based on AGW being both true and untrue.



Sal

[Zeno Swijtink]

Skeptic Magazine has an issue mainly devoted to the debate (its the first issue of this year I believe- it has the multitudes of polar bears floating on ice on the cover). The issue does a great job of deeply presenting the arguments I've put forth (in a better way than I have).


Patrick Frank’s controversial article challenging data and climate models on global warming is at https://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html

A critical analysis of Franks article "A Climate of Belief not believable" by Ken Fabos is at

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&p=130963

It has references to realclimate, the blog by climate scientists for the interested lay public.

Don't forget to read in the same issue of Skeptic "How We Know Global Warming is Real - The science behind human-induced climate change," by CalTech scientist Tapio Schneider, reproduced on his list of publications at

https://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/pubs.html

[Zeno Swijtink]

Thanks for your thoughts, Sal. I'm one who subscribes to GW being a natural phenomenon, upon which attempts to fix it will be a complete waste of time. Polluting the planet is worth coming against. GW? Not so much. We've got relational problems on the planet - abuse, neglect, personal maelstrom, identity crises to the max which can ALL be healed and solved - which I believe come before any action is taken toward the Imaginary GW Show.

Early on when you just had joined this board you were always approaching people with the question: Do you have proof? Or with the accusation: You are just saying that, you don't have proof!

Did you loose interest in having proof for strong convictions, or do you have proof that GW is a natural phenomenon?

[taishon]

Patrick Frank’s controversial article challenging data and climate models on global warming is at https://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html

A critical analysis of Franks article "A Climate of Belief not believable" by Ken Fabos is at

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&p=130963

It has references to realclimate, the blog by climate scientists for the interested lay public.



Don't forget to read in the same issue of Skeptic "How We Know Global Warming is Real - The science behind human-induced climate change," by CalTech scientist Tapio Schneider, reproduced on his list of publications at

https://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/pubs.html (https://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Etapio/pubs.html)


Yes, to be sure..the magazine does not seem (as much as I've read so far) to claim that GW doesn't exist (in fact, it shows, in much depth, the reasons why GW seems to be true). But, it does put a clear light on the skepticism of AGW..which is the main thing I've been advocating.

Sal

[Zeno Swijtink]

Here is the issue I have with Economist arguments about GW and what we should do about it. They tend to reduce the possible outcomes to two things - (1) AGW is correct and if we don't do something radical about it then worldwide devastation occurs (2) If AGW is wrong and we do something radical about it then we will suffer some economic and social problems. The models seems to indicate that the logical solution is to do what Gore seems to be currently proposing and implement some costly government driven radical energy plan. There is at least one other outcome that says that AGW may be wrong and if we use market driven forces to implement change in a moderate way then we are unlikely to suffer either the socio-economic issues of radical change nor the global doom scenario of AGW alarmists. There are actually many other outcomes based on AGW being both true and untrue.

Sal

In my reading of the literature economists are much more sophisticated. See attached for some of the thinking.

[taishon]

Patrick Frank’s controversial article challenging data and climate models on global warming is at https://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html

A critical analysis of Franks article "A Climate of Belief not believable" by Ken Fabos is at

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&p=130963

It has references to realclimate, the blog by climate scientists for the interested lay public.

Don't forget to read in the same issue of Skeptic "How We Know Global Warming is Real - The science behind human-induced climate change," by CalTech scientist Tapio Schneider, reproduced on his list of publications at

https://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/pubs.html (https://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Etapio/pubs.html)


Its very insightful to compare the first 2 GW submissions of the Skeptic Journal. The first one, entitled 'A Climate of Belief" does a very thorough job of investigating the propogation of physical uncertainities in GCMs (the uncertainties used in IPCC charts are based on calculation uncertainties and not on actual physical uncertainties). The second article makes all the mistakes that the first article brought up. The second article, entitled "How We Know Global Warming is Real" (we truly don't) by referencing those same IPCC charts that don't include the actual physical Uncertainties (that propogate outwards until making AGW predictions ore than a year out is meaningless). The second article pays lip service to the uncertainties without actual going over them. The basic gist of the second article is that we know the science of thermodynamics etc so well that it is accurate to make detailed predictions. In actuality, all it is really saying is that our knowledge of the possible individual mechanisms of climate change are very precise but the actual overall picture is extremly comlex to the point where it nothing but pure speculation. In short, the first article invalidates most of the second in a big way. Think of it roughly as learning chess...you may know very precisely how the individual pieces move but predicting more than a few moves out is really tough. The IPCC and others have attempted to make an endgame prediction before they have learned how all the pieces move (they are getting better at learning how the pieces move but how the game ends is ridiculously complex). To extend further to the Co2 analogy..its like saying that if we just concentrate on one chess piece (like the pawns) we might be able to win the endgame.

Sal

[lynn]

taishon..."The IPCC and others have attempted to make an endgame prediction before they have learned how all the pieces move (they are getting better at learning how the pieces move but how the game ends is ridiculously complex). To extend further to the Co2 analogy..its like saying that if we just concentrate on one chess piece (like the pawns) we might be able to win the endgame."

That seems to sum it up pretty well...Thanks!!...

[Zeno Swijtink]

Its very insightful to compare the first 2 GW submissions of the Skeptic Journal. The first one, entitled 'A Climate of Belief" does a very thorough job of investigating the propogation of physical uncertainities in GCMs (the uncertainties used in IPCC charts are based on calculation uncertainties and not on actual physical uncertainties). The second article makes all the mistakes that the first article brought up. The second article, entitled "How We Know Global Warming is Real" (we truly don't) by referencing those same IPCC charts that don't include the actual physical Uncertainties (that propogate outwards until making AGW predictions ore than a year out is meaningless). The second article pays lip service to the uncertainties without actual going over them. The basic gist of the second article is that we know the science of thermodynamics etc so well that it is accurate to make detailed predictions. In actuality, all it is really saying is that our knowledge of the possible individual mechanisms of climate change are very precise but the actual overall picture is extremly comlex to the point where it nothing but pure speculation. In short, the first article invalidates most of the second in a big way. Think of it roughly as learning chess...you may know very precisely how the individual pieces move but predicting more than a few moves out is really tough. The IPCC and others have attempted to make an endgame prediction before they have learned how all the pieces move (they are getting better at learning how the pieces move but how the game ends is ridiculously complex). To extend further to the Co2 analogy..its like saying that if we just concentrate on one chess piece (like the pawns) we might be able to win the endgame.

Sal



It appears to me that you always praise articles that agree with your pre-given opinion and denounce articles that disagree with what you already have accepted.

That is, I have never seen you pointing out a flaw in an article that agrees in its conclusions with what you already believe or praise a publication for making a good point while you disagree with its conclusion.

Or do I misremember?

[Zeno Swijtink]

A New (and Unlikely) Tell-All (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/us/22enviro.html)
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: July 22, 2008

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Calif. — Jason K. Burnett, Washington’s environmental whistle-blower du jour, is an example of a once rare, now almost common, phenomenon: a political appointee willing to tell much of what he knows of the inner workings of the formerly opaque Bush administration.

A lot of people in Washington want to hear what Jason K. Burnett has to say.

Mr. Burnett’s full pitcher of tales about the administration’s inner turmoil over air pollution regulation in general and climate change in particular has been poured deliberately, glass by glass, for a thirsty partisan crowd. More will be offered Tuesday when he appears before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. Burnett’s increasingly public dealings with Democratic committee chairmen in Congress have brought unwelcome attention to the administration’s deliberations on climate change policy. In particular, Mr. Burnett has suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency’s views have been overridden by others in the administration doing industry’s bidding.

What remains curious is how Mr. Burnett, a contributor to Democratic candidates — including Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive presidential nominee — and a policy specialist who counts some of the wealth of Silicon Valley’s Packard family as his inheritance — came to be hired at the agency four years ago at the age of 27 as an adviser.

Andrew Wheeler, staff director for the Republican minority on the public works committee, said in an e-mail message Monday: “Burnett has personally donated over $100,000 to Democratic candidates, and his family’s foundation has contributed hundreds of thousands to Democratic causes. The real question is not why Burnett resigned from the Bush administration, but rather why he sought to work there in the first place.”

Still, there is no question he had a privileged perch in the eras of both Stephen L. Johnson and his predecessor, Michael O. Leavitt, as administrators of the E.P.A. One early assignment was to develop the final architecture of the regulation on mercury that was more flexible in allowing some emissions than environmentalists sought. The courts have since struck down the rule.

There is no doubt that in his self-assurance, Mr. Burnett came across like a newly minted West Point-trained officer bursting with theoretical knowledge, which irritated career employees at the E.P.A. and his peers in other parts of government.

Mr. Burnett was born 31 years ago, the son of two marine biologists. His father, Robin Burnett, wrote a Ph.D. thesis in the 1970s that had helped pinpoint the location and origin of most of the DDT in California ecosystems. His mother, Nancy Packard Burnett, was a founder of the Monterey Bay Aquarium; both he and his mother are on the board of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

His undergraduate degree at Stanford University in 1999 was in economics; his master’s degree there was in earth sciences.

He caught the attention of the Bush team when he moved from California to Washington and wrote about unintended consequences of regulation. His mentor was Robert Hahn, who is director of the Reg-Markets Center (formerly the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies) in Washington, which is run by the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the liberal Brookings Institution.

His policy prescriptions seemed to trump his Democratic origins. “I did not sense any ideology from him whatever,” said Phillip Angell, a former senior adviser to Mr. Leavitt.

Frank O’Donnell, director of Clean Air Watch, an environmental group, was less impressed. “He seemed like an arrogant hotshot,” Mr. O’Donnell said.

Mr. Burnett himself said of his early days at the agency, “I think I probably came in with my own views, and I should have spent more time listening.”

Several career employees at the E.P.A. who had worked with Mr. Burnett did not respond to requests for comment.

After the mercury rule was made final, Mr. Burnett helped direct an effort with greater potential cost for industry: setting a new standard for fine soot particles implicated in thousands of premature deaths. The final standard ignored the recommendations by 20 of 22 scientists advising the environmental agency. It made no change in the more consequential of the two standards. Shortly thereafter, in January 2007, Mr. Burnett quit. He says now he opposed both the policy and the process.

Why, then, did he return a year ago to work on climate-change regulations? In an interview in his home here over the weekend, he paused a full 10 seconds before saying, “Clearly, I knew it was going to be a challenge, but it was an amazing opportunity to help shape national policy on that important issue.”

But as the months passed, the imperative of responding to the Supreme Court’s mandate requiring the E.P.A. to make a decision about heat-trapping gases evaporated, Mr. Burnett said, replaced by hostility from nonagency officials, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney’s aide F. Chase Hutto, who seemed to take industry’s perspective.

Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the vice president’s office, called this assertion “ridiculous.”

Mr. Burnett also said Jeffrey A. Rosen, the general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget, asked three times for separate memorandums describing why carbon dioxide molecules emitted from vehicles (already likely to be subject to regulation) could not be distinguished from CO2 molecules emitted from power-plant smokestacks (whose regulation was opposed by powerful segments of the industry and the administration).

Tony Fratto, a spokesman for the White House, said Monday, “There was no dispute within the administration about the nature of greenhouse gases coming from emissions from any sources.”

In general, Mr. Fratto added, “every policy person has not just a right but an obligation to bring out questions about a proposed regulation.”

But Mr. Burnett said, “The process was absurd.”

[taishon]

It appears to me that you always praise articles that agree with your pre-given opinion and denounce articles that disagree with what you already have accepted.

That is, I have never seen you pointing out a flaw in an article that agrees in its conclusions with what you already believe or praise a publication for making a good point while you disagree with its conclusion.

Or do I misremember?


Without trying to get into a "tit for tat" with you I can accuse you of the same. I would reread my posts..I have pointed out the flaws (or more accurately..the limits) in my own views on several occasions (from what I can tell more than anyone on this forum).I have also praised some of the info you have linked and argued against the post of someone who agreed with me. However, what does that have to do with the actual truth ? I noticed that you didn't respond to the actual content of my criticism (seems to be a habit here..instead of challenging the content of my posts, people are just trying to expand things to a personal opinion about my motivations etc). Every article I have read that has supported the AGW scare view has the same fatal flaws..they fail to include an honest portrayal of the actual physical uncertainties that make their models pretty much useless and invalid scientifically. Thats not minor.

I am very interested in the articles you have posted but why are you not acknowledging their flaws as well ?

Again, it seems like the only challenges I have gotten lately here have been degenerated into comments about my personal motivations and incorrect assumptions about my biases. I have, probably more than anyone I know who has a strong opinion about the subject, been very open-minded and open to the actual truth and evidences on issue.

Sal

[Zeno Swijtink]

I have, probably more than anyone I know who has a strong opinion about the subject, been very open-minded and open to the actual truth and evidences on issue.

Sal

As a matter of general principle I think that is person who is not an expert on a highly technical topic should not have strong opinions about that issue.

It's a mark of a critical thinker to recognize the areas where his opinion should be more tentative, either because of lack of data, or lack of expertise in following and synthesizing the enormous literature on this topic, or lack of access to that literature.

[taishon]

As a matter of general principle I think that is person who is not an expert on a highly technical topic should not have strong opinions about that issue.

It's a mark of a critical thinker to recognize the areas where his opinion should be more tentative, either because of lack of data, or lack of expertise in following and synthesizing the enormous literature on this topic, or lack of access to that literature.

I tentively agree and this is part of the point I've been making (I also think that most posting here, including you, should follow the same advice) BUT;

By that token, no one should have a strong opinion about most political issues since very few people are 'experts' on economics, public policy, the military, political science etc. I have a strong opinion (so, seem do you) on GW issues because I know enough Science to fairly well interpret the merit from the 'experts' who are presenting their case- whether I understand fully how they got their numbers or not. Regardless, you can argue the rationality of the methods used in an argument without understanding all the specific technical details of the content. Again, I have probably been more willing to change my views based on the actual evidence than most people who have strong opinionson the subject. Finally, my 'strong opinion, is merely an argument towards rational skepticism (which doesn't seem to be present enough) rather than a specific claim.

I am not so sure its valuable to respond to posts like this..I really want people to respond to the actual content of my arguments rather than steering this to superflous issues that are merely smoke screens for Ad Hominem attacks (however mild) or condescending lectures and personal statements or really off-task subjective assumptions rather than actual content-based debate.


Sal

[lynn]

zeno wrote..."On another point, I think you are too much fixated on Al Gore. If you really wish to critically assess the claims of anthropic climate change follow the literature in the five or six important journals of the topic, rather than the life and work of a popularizer."...

What is suspicious to me, when I come across statements like this...Is that the 'man-made global warming supporters', NEVER said anything like that when an 'Inconvenient Truth' came out...They were fixated on Gore, how great the movie was, and loved that he was 'popularizing' this issue...He was practically God...At least that's sure how it came across to me...

Now, he'll get somewhat dismissed a bit by his 'supporters'...Hmmmmmm

[Zeno Swijtink]

zeno wrote..."On another point, I think you are too much fixated on Al Gore. If you really wish to critically assess the claims of anthropic climate change follow the literature in the five or six important journals of the topic, rather than the life and work of a popularizer."...

What is suspicious to me, when I come across statements like this...Is that the 'man-made global warming supporters', NEVER said anything like that when an 'Inconvenient Truth' came out...They were fixated on Gore, how great the movie was, and loved that he was 'popularizing' this issue...He was practically God...At least that's sure how it came across to me...

Now, he'll get somewhat dismissed a bit by his 'supporters'...Hmmmmmm

I think Gore's movie is a great popularization of the topic.

On a technical level the only flaw it has that he does not clearly say that in the past CO2 increases were triggered by temperature increases (from CO2 release of the oceans) triggered by extraneous factors and then themselves reinforced the temperature increases.

This is how it is explained in the computer climate models.

His movie was not a research contribution and I am not dismissing Gore in saying that.

If Sal beliefs he is exposing flaws in the work of climate scientists he better focuses on the scientific literature and not base his critique on a video that did not discuss the statistical details since it would make the topic unaccessible to the public.

Sal says that the uncertainties are too large to draw the AGW conclusion.

But he does not critique the scientists who apparently wrote a letter to the UN, mentioned on this thread, that starts with the sentence: "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages." Such a conclusion must be equally unwarrented in his eyes, no?

Why does he not critique these people? Is it because secretly he believes they are right?

And what is meant with "too large"? And when would the uncertainties not be too large?

[Zeno Swijtink]

Again, it seems like the only challenges I have gotten lately here have been degenerated into comments about my personal motivations and incorrect assumptions about my biases.


I think you yourself brought on these type of challenges by attacking people like me for being under a mass-psychosis type spell, when he wrote about your friends "who are, variably, historians, psychologists etc. and they have brought the religious fanatic analogy forward. The Global Warming issue has all the overtones of religious fanaticism which include 'burnings at the stake", 'Witch-hunting", denialism you name it."

[taishon]

I think Gore's movie is a great popularization of the topic.

On a technical level the only flaw it has that he does not clearly say that in the past CO2 increases were triggered by temperature increases (from CO2 release of the oceans) triggered by extraneous factors and then themselves reinforced the temperature increases.

I can't believe you think thats the only flaw. That flaw alone is pretty great. An interpretation of what you just said is that GW may be explained by a natural phenomena which is increasing the CO2 load which is positively feeding back the effect of the phenomena. The 'extraneous factors' could be natural and there is nothing in the literature, that I am aware of, that puts it beyond speculative based on data-driven physical arguments. If you can produce a source that does, I will freely and openly admit I was wrong.

This is how it is explained in the computer climate models.

And more..and they claim to make very definite predictions without including the proper discussion about the very serious physical uncertainties.

His movie was not a research contribution and I am not dismissing Gore in saying that.

No..but he claims that he is distilling research contributions that are not in dispute (they are)..I don't dismiss some alarism..just what I believe to be his dishonest and misleading way of getting to them,

If Sal beliefs he is exposing flaws in the work of climate scientists he better focuses on the scientific literature and not base his critique on a video that did not discuss the statistical details since it would make the topic unaccessible to the public.

I have been and you need to be honest about your hypocrisy here. Not every source you have used has been part of the hard science literature. Using error bars is not beyond the public unless you have no respect for the public.


Sal says that the uncertainties are too large to draw the AGW conclusion.

But he does not critique the scientists who apparently wrote a letter to the UN, mentioned on this thread, that starts with the sentence: "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages." Such a conclusion must be equally unwarrented in his eyes, no?

I am unaware of the letter, otherwise I probably would. Depending on the rest of the letter, that conclusion probably is unwarranted.By the way, what does that have to do with the integrity of my argument ? Why must I criticize some views that are not mine in order to support my view ? Why are you (yet again) bringing some personal unrelated issue forward. Ihave, on several occasions indicated the possible uncertainties and limits of the sources of used. Why don't you do the same of your supposed 'hard science' climate resources.

Why does he not critique these people?
Because I am not in a forum that is heavily anti-Gore pro-GW conspiracy biased. I tend to try to argue against norms that are dishonest or misleading or untrue. Believe me, if this forum were biased towards an irrational GW conspiracy view or some such I would be tilting my argument in the opposite direction. My view is moderately, rationally, honestly skeptical and forms some kind of peak between the views. I feel like I have to constantly grab the boulders of irrationality and keep balancing on the peak. Unfortunately, the boulders keep getting more numerous and heavy and I keep getting isolated.

Is it because secretly he believes they are right?

Why do you insist on keeping with the slimey personal attack tactics instead of arguing against the content of my posts ? Why are you not admitting the gross uncertainties and errors in the papers you have promoted ? Could you be you are out of content driven debate and must resort to personal tactics instead ?

And what is meant with "too large"? And when would the uncertainties not be too large?


How about a physical uncertainty that is greater than the actual effect the model is trying to predict ? That would happen about a year out or less. The conclusion being (from a physical uncertainty argument) that the climate models (and thus the view that you seem to agree with) is that the models are ultimately completely speculative beyond very very short time scales and they are speculating about a phenomena (climate) which probably has time scales many many many times greater than the usefulness of the models.


Any chance you are gonna try to come back to the an actual content-driven debate based on climate science instead of psychological and personal jabs ?

Sal

[taishon]

I think you yourself brought on these type of challenges by attacking people like me for being under a mass-psychosis type spell, when he wrote about your friends "who are, variably, historians, psychologists etc. and they have brought the religious fanatic analogy forward. The Global Warming issue has all the overtones of religious fanaticism which include 'burnings at the stake", 'Witch-hunting", denialism you name it."

I actually thought you were more rational than the ones I've been insultingly labeling (other than the obnoxious and childish personal jabs). Once I get past the 'noise' in your posts, they have been thought provoking (but not convincing to me).If you think I was referring directly to 'people like you' then you are less rational than I have given you credit for and the insulting labels also apply to you. I never said "Zeno is religious fanatic etc" but if you want to take it personally and identify with the groups I'be been denigrating..so be it.

Sal

[Zeno Swijtink]

How about a physical uncertainty that is greater than the actual effect the model is trying to predict ? That would happen about a year out or less. The conclusion being (from a physical uncertainty argument) that the climate models (and thus the view that you seem to agree with) is that the models are ultimately completely speculative beyond very very short time scales and they are speculating about a phenomena (climate) which probably has time scales many many many times greater than the usefulness of the models.


Any chance you are gonna try to come back to the an actual content-driven debate based on climate science instead of psychological and personal jabs ?

Sal



This issue is discussed in the Ken Fabos reference I gave above (#112) and the realclimate.com discussion referred to there What the IPCC models really say (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/).

I strongly encourage you to test out your ideas in that forum. The level of expertise there is significant and it will be much more fruitful and gratifying for you to post there!

PS If you would avoid fighting words and stop putting everything you write in red - for someone like me who is mildly color blind harder too read - which works a bit like a red flag, :): , that would it make it easier for me to avoid psychological and personal jabs.

[thewholetruth]

Gee, Zeno, for someone who is so worried about people staying on topic on other threads, you've sure managed to participate in degenerating into personality inventories here.

Interesting, that...


This issue is discussed in the Ken Fabos reference I gave above (#112) and the realclimate.com discussion referred to there What the IPCC models really say (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/).

I strongly encourage you to test out your ideas in that forum. The level of expertise there is significant and it will be much more fruitful and gratifying for you to post there!

PS If you would avoid fighting words and stop putting everything you write in red - for someone like me who is mildly color blind harder too read - which works a bit like a red flag, :): , that would it make it easier for me to avoid psychological and personal jabs.

[Mike Peterson]

Zeno, why do you dignify this disrespectful person with your responses? I don't get it. People have been banned from this list for equivalent behavior. I would not encourage individuals like 'soll' etc.

I would like to see the good quality debates of the past return. I don't think we will see it again if we reward the wrong conduct.

Mike



This issue is discussed in the Ken Fabos reference I gave above (#112) and the realclimate.com discussion referred to there What the IPCC models really say (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/).

I strongly encourage you to test out your ideas in that forum. The level of expertise there is significant and it will be much more fruitful and gratifying for you to post there!

PS If you would avoid fighting words and stop putting everything you write in red - for someone like me who is mildly color blind harder too read - which works a bit like a red flag, :): , that would it make it easier for me to avoid psychological and personal jabs.

[thewholetruth]

Mike, perhaps you could solve this for everyone and just dictate who can stay and who has to go...and what people can say and what they can't say...and maybe who can say what, and who can't?

Sal is here to participate in discussions, Mike, just like I am. Despite your personal opinions about him/us and/or his/our comments, I know I enjoy talking with people who I would ordinarily never get the opportunity to dialogue with. That is what this forum provides for me. It gives me the opportunity to find out how the other side thinks, what they think, and why they think it. You won't find that on TV or in the paper, Mike. Regardless whether you can appreciate Sal's communication style or mine or Ms. Terry's or anyone's here, there are things taking place in all of this that isn't apparent to the naked eye. Despite where my discussions with Jeff have gone, for example, I very much appreciate the opportunity to sometimes clumsily reply to his comments and hear his sometimes clumsy thoughts about mine. I like being able to pick his brain and let him pick mine, even though the discussion degenerates from time to time into an E-pissing match. These conversations wouldn't even be taking place in real life, Mike.

An open mind, a little humility and an honest desire to communicate with those who are not like-minded can go a long way on a board like this. Do I always like the approach people take or the things they say to me here? No, I don't. Are my discussions in real life along these same lines? They certainly are not. This is a unique forum, Mike. I, for one, appreciate it, with all it's foibles. I'm sure that everyone doesn't share my appreciation as enthusiastically as I do.

Just my thoughts...:2cents:



Zeno, why do you dignify this disrespectful person with your responses? I don't get it. People have been banned from this list for equivalent behavior. I would not encourage individuals like 'soll' etc.

I would like to see the good quality debates of the past return. I don't think we will see it again if we reward the wrong conduct.

Mike

[taishon]

Mike, perhaps you could solve this for everyone and just dictate who can stay and who has to go...and what people can say and what they can't say...and maybe who can say what, and who can't?

Sal is here to participate in discussions, Mike, just like I am. Despite your personal opinions about him/us and/or his/our comments, I know I enjoy talking with people who I would ordinarily never get the opportunity to dialogue with. That is what this forum provides for me. It gives me the opportunity to find out how the other side thinks, what they think, and why they think it. You won't find that on TV or in the paper, Mike. Regardless whether you can appreciate Sal's communication style or mine or Ms. Terry's or anyone's here, there are things taking place in all of this that isn't apparent to the naked eye. Despite where my discussions with Jeff have gone, for example, I very much appreciate the opportunity to sometimes clumsily reply to his comments and hear his sometimes clumsy thoughts about mine. I like being able to pick his brain and let him pick mine, even though the discussion degenerates from time to time into an E-pissing match. These conversations wouldn't even be taking place in real life, Mike.

An open mind, a little humility and an honest desire to communicate with those who are not like-minded can go a long way on a board like this. Do I always like the approach people take or the things they say to me here? No, I don't. Are my discussions in real life along these same lines? They certainly are not. This is a unique forum, Mike. I, for one, appreciate it, with all it's foibles. I'm sure that everyone doesn't share my appreciation as enthusiastically as I do.

Just my thoughts...:2cents:

Well and reasonably said (I hope you like the green this time Zeno :0). I would respond to Mike's comments by saying that, if I got kicked off for how/what I have said then at least 3 others should be removed also (including Zeno)..if Mike doesn't believe then he definitely hasn't been paying attention to the actual posts in this thread (right from my first post, I've gotten harsh and unfair responses instead of reasoned debate). I actually would talk the same way in person, responding the same way to the types of comments that were made. Personally, I think everyone should have to post while naked in front of a webcam so the might not believe that the internet is an excuse for them to act how they normally wouldn't :0)

Sal

[thewholetruth]

Well and reasonably said

Thank you, Sal.


Personally, I think everyone should have to post while naked in front of a webcam so the might not believe that the internet is an excuse for them to act how they normally wouldn't :0)

What I meant when I said I don't have conversations like this in real life is that there have been instances where I was too quick (IMO) to respond, where I was perhaps more rude than I would have been face to face from time to time. The truth is that none of these conversations would even be taking place in real life, since most folks have a hard time discussing politics and/or social issues with folks whose POV are polar opposites to theirs. Most find it difficult to remain civil when someone is telling them that their opinions are foolish...which is what both sides do to one another here in this forum, one way or another.

I really appreciate this forum. For me, it truly is iron sharpening iron. I am getting a greater understanding of why some folks (can't even call 'em Liberals anymore, it's so far away from the definition of Liberal) think what they think.

[MsTerry]

Don, I had no idea that you were able to be coherent and make :2cents:
That's the way to go, Sir :thumbsup:


Mike, perhaps you could solve this for everyone and just dictate who can stay and who has to go...and what people can say and what they can't say...and maybe who can say what, and who can't?

Sal is here to participate in discussions, Mike, just like I am. Despite your personal opinions about him/us and/or his/our comments, I know I enjoy talking with people who I would ordinarily never get the opportunity to dialogue with. That is what this forum provides for me. It gives me the opportunity to find out how the other side thinks, what they think, and why they think it. You won't find that on TV or in the paper, Mike. Regardless whether you can appreciate Sal's communication style or mine or Ms. Terry's or anyone's here, there are things taking place in all of this that isn't apparent to the naked eye. Despite where my discussions with Jeff have gone, for example, I very much appreciate the opportunity to sometimes clumsily reply to his comments and hear his sometimes clumsy thoughts about mine. I like being able to pick his brain and let him pick mine, even though the discussion degenerates from time to time into an E-pissing match. These conversations wouldn't even be taking place in real life, Mike.

An open mind, a little humility and an honest desire to communicate with those who are not like-minded can go a long way on a board like this. Do I always like the approach people take or the things they say to me here? No, I don't. Are my discussions in real life along these same lines? They certainly are not. This is a unique forum, Mike. I, for one, appreciate it, with all it's foibles. I'm sure that everyone doesn't share my appreciation as enthusiastically as I do.

Just my thoughts...:2cents:

[Lenny]

As a matter of general principle I think that is person who is not an expert on a highly technical topic should not have strong opinions about that issue.
It's a mark of a critical thinker to recognize the areas where his opinion should be more tentative, either because of lack of data, or lack of expertise in following and synthesizing the enormous literature on this topic, or lack of access to that literature.

Z, I am not an expert on Zeno, but me thinks you crossed the line here. Since I am Everyman, then I may only follow those opinions that have a PhD? or only an MA? Or only government guys or anti-government folks?
Come on! Back up here. Even "reasonably intelligent" folks disagree.
I may like your point and even agree with it, but you watch your language, young man, or you may be taken to task out behind the barn! Wanna try it again? :wink:

[MsTerry]

It is sometimes the people whose minds are not clogged up with data that are able to come up with REAL solutions to complex problems. Once you aren't able to think outside the box, you keep on repeating the same patterns


As a matter of general principle I think that is person who is not an expert on a highly technical topic should not have strong opinions about that issue.

It's a mark of a critical thinker to recognize the areas where his opinion should be more tentative, either because of lack of data, or lack of expertise in following and synthesizing the enormous literature on this topic, or lack of access to that literature.

[Zeno Swijtink]

It is sometimes the people whose minds are not clogged up with data that are able to come up with REAL solutions to complex problems. Once you aren't able to think outside the box, you keep on repeating the same patterns

But then there is Louis Pasteur who said

"Dans les champs de l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les spirits preparees"

"In the fields of observation chance favours only the prepared mind"

Hence

-Hard work
-Long hours of observation & data collection
-Assimilation of information from lectures, reading, lab experience

"The mind is then prepared to get "lucky," take advantage of and "see" an opportunity, make connections, and ultimately an advance in science’"– Judy Bond, ASBMB (American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology) President

[MsTerry]

But then there is Louis Pasteur who said
"Dans les champs de l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les spirits preparees"


Yes, wasn't it Louis' wife who was behind some of his "discoveries"?
Didn't they lose 3 of their own children due to carelessness in controlling the laboratory environment?



Throughout his life, Louis Pasteur remained an ardent Catholic. A well-known quotation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation) illustrating this is attributed to him: "The more I know, the more nearly is my faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant's wife."

[thewholetruth]

Don, I had no idea that you were able to be coherent and make :2cents:
That's the way to go, Sir :thumbsup:

Why, Ms. Terry, that's the first time you've encouraged me since the first week I got here! What a refreshing way to start my day! Thank you, Ma'am! :thumbsup:

[taishon]

I watched the Penn and Teller BS episode on the green movement...really amusing and insightful..I find myself disagreeing, in minor ways, with parts on each episode but the overall gist has always agreed with me. One interesting point that I hadn't though about was the idea that using government enforced methods to drive up fuel prices/standards could equate to tragedy in impovershed countries like the ban on DDT did some 20 years ago (making alternatives as cheap as oil derivatives in poor countries is very difficult without straight subsidies which have little overall effect beyond the local level).
Another interesting factoid I hadn't realized was that Gore invested in a carbon credit company (General Investment Management) which is now run by Peter Knight (former Gore staff member and chief fund raiser) 2 years before IT came out. You make your own conclusions..I will call this an item of curious interest.

Sal

[MsTerry]

Another interesting factoid I hadn't realized was that Gore invested in a carbon credit company (General Investment Management) which is now run by Peter Knight (former Gore staff member and chief fund raiser) 2 years before IT came out. You make your own conclusions..I will call this an item of curious interest.

Sal
Can you provide more info and data?
Was this start up money? Venture capital? Co-owner money?
Or is this just mudslinging?

[thewholetruth]

Al Gore is a whore. There isn't any misunderstanding about this from either side on this issue. He's an opportunist who is dishonest who took advantage of people's fears. There isn't much lower you can go than that. He had an agenda, Ma'am. He had investments to influence and he did so by lying and manipulating the media. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...


Can you provide more info and data?
Was this start up money? Venture capital? Co-owner money?
Or is this just mudslinging?

[MsTerry]

Thanks for your compassionate christian insight. :hmmm: Shoot the messenger without any data. Wasn't Jesus from the Middle East?


Al Gore is a whore. There isn't any misunderstanding about this from either side on this issue. He's an opportunist who is dishonest who took advantage of people's fears. There isn't much lower you can go than that. He had an agenda, Ma'am. He had investments to influence and he did so by lying and manipulating the media. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

[taishon]

Al Gore is a whore. There isn't any misunderstanding about this from either side on this issue. He's an opportunist who is dishonest who took advantage of people's fears. There isn't much lower you can go than that. He had an agenda, Ma'am. He had investments to influence and he did so by lying and manipulating the media. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...



I laughed when I read this because, subjectively, I agree with you wholeheartedly :0). However, from an objective point of view, I think I will reserve complete judgement until I do further research. I do think its interesting how much money can be made from eco-guilt..From what I can tell most of the carbon credit companies have little, if any, oversight and the their carbon offset formulas don't seem to be backed by any kind of complete scientific analysis.

Sal

[theindependenteye]

>>I do think its interesting how much money can be made from eco-guilt.

Making a purely financial decision between investing in "eco-guilt" and buying Exxon stock, I think you'd still be wise to choose the latter. Given Pickens' intended investment in wind power, that may be changing, though I doubt he's relying on eco-guilt; more likely he's looking at cold, hard facts.

Interesting, the suggestion that being scared shitless about global warming is spurred by guilt. Yeh, maybe if I truly repented my sins, I wouldn't mind risking my grandkids' world, knowing we'd all meet in heaven. But if I hesitate to step out in front of an oncoming truck, it's not really because I'm overwhelmed with guilt for treading on sacred land stolen from the Indians & paved over & called Highway 101; it's because I see a fucking truck.

I'm not disputing the issue of global warming here, only the ascribing of motives.

>>From what I can tell most of the carbon credit companies have little, if any, oversight...

It's generally the Conservative contention that oversight by governmental agencies is responsible for suffocating the natural fruitfulness of capitalism. So if it's true that these companies are unregulated, that seems coherent with the principles of the current administration, which, whatever its flaws, unquestionably operates by principle.

-Conrad

[taishon]

>>I do think its interesting how much money can be made from eco-guilt.

Making a purely financial decision between investing in "eco-guilt" and buying Exxon stock, I think you'd still be wise to choose the latter. Given Pickens' intended investment in wind power, that may be changing, though I doubt he's relying on eco-guilt; more likely he's looking at cold, hard facts.

Interesting, the suggestion that being scared shitless about global warming is spurred by guilt. Yeh, maybe if I truly repented my sins, I wouldn't mind risking my grandkids' world, knowing we'd all meet in heaven. But if I hesitate to step out in front of an oncoming truck, it's not really because I'm overwhelmed with guilt for treading on sacred land stolen from the Indians & paved over & called Highway 101; it's because I see a fucking truck.

I'm not disputing the issue of global warming here, only the ascribing of
motives.

I am not sure how you can seperate the two. P&T made what I thought was an apt analogy between paying for sin pardons and carbon credits. Carbon has been given a bad name despite the wonderous benefits we've received from it and there are most certainly dangers from thinking only about reducing 'carbon footprints' - either voluntarily (will not work until AGW is proven..which it is unlikley to be) or involuntarily (government driven).




>>From what I can tell most of the carbon credit companies have little, if any, oversight...

It's generally the Conservative contention that oversight by governmental agencies is responsible for suffocating the natural fruitfulness of capitalism. So if it's true that these companies are unregulated, that seems coherent with the principles of the current administration, which, whatever its flaws, unquestionably operates by principle.


I know very few conservatives that don't believe in oversight. I never said Government oversight..I said oversight of any credible kind.


-Conrad




Sal

[theindependenteye]

>>I'm not disputing the issue of global warming here, only the ascribing of
motives.

>I am not sure how you can seperate the two.

Easy. The issues of global warming are one thing. Ascribing hypocritical motives to the proponents of one side or the other deflects from any maturity in the debate. The corporate proponents of full-steam-ahead oil & coal development are making lots'n'lotsa money, but I'm totally willing to believe that many of those CEOs (having known a few such people over the years) are absolutely convinced that it's not just about their salaries, that they're making an important contribution. So I'm not going to argue that they're greedy assholes: the issue is in the risk & the results. That's why I made the distinction.

>P&T made what I thought was an apt analogy between paying for sin pardons and carbon credits.

I have mixed feelings about the "carbon credits" strategy, though the argument is that there's evidence it's worked for air quality. But I don't think the analogy's quite apt, unless God determined that there was an acceptable level of sin in the world and allowed His priests to be the middlemen in trading the credits about, on the assumption that the marketplace would regulate sin better than the cops would.

>Carbon has been given a bad name despite the wonderous benefits we've received from it and there are most certainly dangers from thinking only about reducing 'carbon footprints'...

Of course.

>I know very few conservatives that don't believe in oversight. I never said Government oversight..I said oversight of any credible kind.

What kind of oversight would that be? I've never seen any corporate oversight that was effective without independent enforcement power, whether gov't agency, class action suits, whatever. The one relatively effective example I can think of might be major league baseball, but then we have the tobacco companies... Ah well.

Now I have to jump over into a debate in a Shakespeare discussion list about whether the burning of the Globe Theatre in 1613 was actually arson. Who can say what hangs in the balance? Talk about global warming!

And then I'd damn well better get back to work, or I won't live long enough to see any major catastrophes.

Cheers—
Conrad

[taishon]

>>I'm not disputing the issue of global warming here, only the ascribing of
motives.

>I am not sure how you can seperate the two.

Easy. The issues of global warming are one thing. Ascribing hypocritical motives to the proponents of one side or the other deflects from any maturity in the debate. The corporate proponents of full-steam-ahead oil & coal development are making lots'n'lotsa money, but I'm totally willing to believe that many of those CEOs (having known a few such people over the years) are absolutely convinced that it's not just about their salaries, that they're making an important contribution. So I'm not going to argue that they're greedy assholes: the issue is in the risk & the results. That's why I made the distinction.

>P&T made what I thought was an apt analogy between paying for sin pardons and carbon credits.

I have mixed feelings about the "carbon credits" strategy, though the argument is that there's evidence it's worked for air quality. But I don't think the analogy's quite apt, unless God determined that there was an acceptable level of sin in the world and allowed His priests to be the middlemen in trading the credits about, on the assumption that the marketplace would regulate sin better than the cops would.

>Carbon has been given a bad name despite the wonderous benefits we've received from it and there are most certainly dangers from thinking only about reducing 'carbon footprints'...

Of course.

>I know very few conservatives that don't believe in oversight. I never said Government oversight..I said oversight of any credible kind.

What kind of oversight would that be? I've never seen any corporate oversight that was effective without independent enforcement power, whether gov't agency, class action suits, whatever. The one relatively effective example I can think of might be major league baseball, but then we have the tobacco companies... Ah well.

Now I have to jump over into a debate in a Shakespeare discussion list about whether the burning of the Globe Theatre in 1613 was actually arson. Who can say what hangs in the balance? Talk about global warming!

And then I'd damn well better get back to work, or I won't live long enough to see any major catastrophes.

Cheers—
Conrad





I should probably distinguish when I am arguing like an ancient Greek (who believed the power of reasoning was more important than experimental data) and giving opinionation (I was in the mood for pontificating) and when I am trying to argue using the Scientific Method. Whenever I use argument by analogy I know, ahead of time, that it is limited but there is an interesting point to be made and comparing the idea of lazily washing away your sins with money and relieving your eco guilt (without truly changing your ways) with money.

Non-government oversight can easily include- (1) non government consumer advocacy groups, the internet, good science peer review etc etc. A lot of the sights we have referenced here are non-government science courts which try to publicize GW theory oversights.


Lots of good points though.

I am curious about your answer to the Globe arson question.

Sal

[Zeno Swijtink]

I laughed when I read this because, subjectively, I agree with you wholeheartedly :0). However, from an objective point of view, I think I will reserve complete judgement until I do further research. I do think its interesting how much money can be made from eco-guilt..From what I can tell most of the carbon credit companies have little, if any, oversight and the their carbon offset formulas don't seem to be backed by any kind of complete scientific analysis.

Sal



Gore held the first congressional hearings on the climate change in 1976. Surely a long term investment strategy!

I do not understand why Al Gore is such a hated and scorned figure among reactionaries. I am sure if he had invested in Exxon Mobil he would have been called a hypocrite.

[MsTerry]

Gore is putting his money where his mouth is.
I think it is threatening to some people that Gore has proven Global Warming so convincingly that even GW now has acknowledged that we have a problem.


Gore held the first congressional hearings on the climate change in 1976. Surely a long term investment strategy!

I do not understand why Al Gore is such a hated and scorned figure among reactionaries. I am sure if he had invested in Exxon Mobil he would have been called a hypocrite.

[taishon]

Gore is putting his money where his mouth is.
I think it is threatening to some people that Gore has proven Global Warming so convincingly that even GW now has acknowledged that we have a problem.


Gore hasn't proved anything about GW that I am aware of. He is putting money where his money is.
Sal

[taishon]

Gore held the first congressional hearings on the climate change in 1976. Surely a long term investment strategy!

I do not understand why Al Gore is such a hated and scorned figure among reactionaries. I am sure if he had invested in Exxon Mobil he would have been called a hypocrite.


Good point and I should get off the Anti-Gore kick (or at least show more to the man than I have..I just have some personal opinionated reasons to dislike the guy and my opinions are clouding my reasoning).

Sal

PS What color do you prefer ?;)

[Zeno Swijtink]

Good point and I should get off the Anti-Gore kick (or at least show more to the man than I have..I just have some personal opinionated reasons to dislike the guy and my opinions are clouding my reasoning).

Sal

PS What color do you prefer ?;)



Black and white are my colors. Here I agree with "thewholetruth."

[phooph]

Just to add more fuel to the fire: https://tinyurl.com/6ohwnc

[thewholetruth]

Just to add more fuel to the fire: https://tinyurl.com/6ohwnc

Bravo. Thank you for informing the ignorant masses like this. Unfortunately, the ignorant masses are both blind and deaf, which explains why they're so jacked up about Obama Hussein. Obama is nothing more than an empty suit, his speeches filled with crap and nothingness. It is the pot head generation that is ignoring the fact that he's an inexperienced egomaniac racist, when the rest of us can see it as clear as day. But I digress...

Great commentary regarding the truth about Gore's involvement in stripping out this nation's Old Growth forests and much more. Still, those fools who support that marroon will blindly stand beside Gore, praising him all the more, because the truth doesn't mean anything to them. They value their own unfounded opinions more than they value the truth.

I just shake my head...and then lift it in order to applaud your effort here. :thumbsup:

[thewholetruth]

Black and white are my colors. Here I agree with "thewholetruth."

I knew we had some common ground, Zeno. I just knew it. :thumbsup:

[Braggi]

... Unfortunately, the ignorant masses are both blind and deaf, which explains why they're so jacked up about Obama Hussein. Obama is nothing more than an empty suit, his speeches filled with crap and nothingness. It is the pot head generation that is ignoring the fact that he's an inexperienced egomaniac racist, when the rest of us can see it as clear as day. ...

When you have preconceived notions, it's hard to see anything but those notions.

Isn't making fun of someone's name, well, of a first grade mentality?

Obama has more experience than GW Bush had at this point in his career, has had more success in life, greater intelligence, a broader background and a point of view outside of the exclusive, white, mega-money corporate circles you rail against on these pages regularly, Don. You should be the biggest Obama supporter here. McCain supports all the treasonous priorities and programs that came into being under GW Bush. I agree that Obama isn't a strong enough opponent of that system, but I think he's a Hel of a lot better than McCain.

Turning this ship of debate back toward the topic at the top, I think Obama's cabinet would do a whole lot more to turn us away from fossil fuels than McCain's would. And we all know how important that is, right? :wink:

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Isn't it funny, actually hypocritical, to see someone like you Don, who exclaims that he learned from the past, and turned his life around. To see that you start barking at others who are trying to right a wrong.
Which one of your 12 steps does that come from?
Or is it #13, pride comes before the fall?


Bravo. Thank you for informing the ignorant masses like this. Unfortunately, the ignorant masses are both blind and deaf, which explains why they're so jacked up about Obama Hussein. Obama is nothing more than an empty suit, his speeches filled with crap and nothingness. It is the pot head generation that is ignoring the fact that he's an inexperienced egomaniac racist, when the rest of us can see it as clear as day. But I digress...

Great commentary regarding the truth about Gore's involvement in stripping out this nation's Old Growth forests and much more. Still, those fools who support that marroon will blindly stand beside Gore, praising him all the more, because the truth doesn't mean anything to them. They value their own unfounded opinions more than they value the truth.

I just shake my head...and then lift it in order to applaud your effort here. :thumbsup:

[taishon]

Bravo. Thank you for informing the ignorant masses like this. Unfortunately, the ignorant masses are both blind and deaf, which explains why they're so jacked up about Obama Hussein. Obama is nothing more than an empty suit, his speeches filled with crap and nothingness. It is the pot head generation that is ignoring the fact that he's an inexperienced egomaniac racist, when the rest of us can see it as clear as day. But I digress...

Great commentary regarding the truth about Gore's involvement in stripping out this nation's Old Growth forests and much more. Still, those fools who support that marroon will blindly stand beside Gore, praising him all the more, because the truth doesn't mean anything to them. They value their own unfounded opinions more than they value the truth.

I just shake my head...and then lift it in order to applaud your effort here. :thumbsup:


Could you please tell us what you really think ?!? You keep holding back :0)
Sal
PS I think Obama is the first candidate I am choosing that isn't "the lesser of two evils" in many many years (Carter was the other). I also think politics is a silly thing to argue about since its the one subject that everyone has an uninformed opinion about.

[lynn]

I just loved the little line I found in this article...So, I highlighted and thought I'd post some of the article...

..."As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 21 percent in the past century. The world has also been getting a little bit warmer. The not very reliable data on the world’s average temperature (which omit most of the world’s remote regions, while over-representing urban areas) shows about a 0.5°C increase in average temperature between 1880 and 1980, and it’s still rising, more sharply in the polar regions than elsewhere. But is CO2, at 380 ppm in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 percent of solar radiation that’s absorbed in the atmosphere, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in the tropical atmosphere can be as high as 2 percent, the equivalent of 20,000 ppm? As Hertzberg says, water “is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the earth and the sun. Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.” And water is exactly that component of the earth’s heat balance that global warming computer models fail to account for.


It’s a notorious inconvenience for the Greenhousers that data also show CO2 concentrations from the Eocene period, 20 million years before Henry Ford trundled his first Model T out of the shop, to be 300 to 400 percent higher than current concentrations. The Greenhousers deal with other difficulties like the medieval warming period’s higher-than-today’s temperatures by straightforward chicanery, misrepresenting tree-ring data (themselves an unreliable guide) and claiming the warming was a local, insignificant European affair.

We’re warmer now, because today’s world is in the thaw following the last Ice Age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the earth’s elliptic orbit round the sun, and in the earth’s tilt. As Hertzberg explains, the cyclical heat effect of all of these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by the Serbian physicist, Milutin Milankovitch, one of the giants of 20th-century astrophysics. In past postglacial cycles, as now, the earth’s orbit and tilt gives us more summer days between the equinoxes.
Water covers 71 percent of the surface of the planet. As compared to the atmosphere, there’s at least a hundred times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the postglacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, just like fizz in soda water taken out of the fridge. “So the greenhouse global warming theory has it ass-backwards,” Hertzberg concludes. “It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse.” He has recently had vivid confirmation of that conclusion. Several new papers show that for the last three-quarter million years, CO2 changes always lag global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years."...

https://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=636

[Zeno Swijtink]

I just loved the little line I found in this article...So, I highlighted and thought I'd post some of the article...

..."As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 21 percent in the past century. The world has also been getting a little bit warmer. The not very reliable data on the world’s average temperature (which omit most of the world’s remote regions, while over-representing urban areas) shows about a 0.5°C increase in average temperature between 1880 and 1980, and it’s still rising, more sharply in the polar regions than elsewhere. But is CO2, at 380 ppm in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 percent of solar radiation that’s absorbed in the atmosphere, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in the tropical atmosphere can be as high as 2 percent, the equivalent of 20,000 ppm? As Hertzberg says, water “is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the earth and the sun. Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.” And water is exactly that component of the earth’s heat balance that global warming computer models fail to account for.



I discussed this issue in #67 of this thread. This author seems ignorant of the science of the issue.