planet in peril...really?
12-31-07, 12:18 AM
#151
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Actually Marx had a pretty good handle on the problem--it was his attempt at a solution that sucked. Anyhoo, thank goodness that there are still a few of you old Cold Warriors around fighting communism. Thank you for your service, sir. 
12-31-07, 12:52 AM
#152
Sophomoric Member
Except that I'm far from thinking that capitalism, as practiced in today's global economy, works any better.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
12-31-07, 01:23 AM
#153
Bikes are good
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 111
Bikes: 2000 Schwinn Moab 1, heavily modified
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, they materialized just fine. Then a bunch of people died, and rational folks realized that Marxism might not be such a great idea after all. I understand, btw, that Marx is making something of a comeback among the young, earnest white folks on this continent. I guess I've now joined the generation that wonders what this world is coming to.
The top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. (which conveniently averages right around one million dollars per year) pay about 35% of the total income taxes each year. So those evil rich guys are contributing $350,000 -- each -- to building hospitals, bridges, and guns with which to kill those icky foreigners you mentioned earlier.
2) As Roody pointed out, even if this is the case, the contribution of 35% of total income tax by a demographic which owns far more than 35% of the wealth doesn't mean a lot.
3) But you've dodged the question. The question wasn't who contributes the most federal income tax - in fact income tax wasn't even mentioned - the question related to Leisesturm's original assertion that the rich exploit the poor. I'll ask again, in simpler terms: if you don't believe that the work of the poor both enriches and maintains the riches of the wealthy, then how do the wealthy get wealthy and stay that way?
You should ask yourself that question. I don't feel the need to resort to ad hominem, unsupportable assertions and mockery in every single post I make - in fact I've never read one post from you which didn't contain one or all of the above.
12-31-07, 01:25 AM
#154
Bikes are good
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 111
Bikes: 2000 Schwinn Moab 1, heavily modified
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
12-31-07, 02:53 AM
#155
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If planet, Earth, is in peril, it's NOT due to man's activities. The primary cause of current warming is solar activity which isn't fully understood. Yes, man's activities impact the earth, but that impact is negligible compared to other factors such as the sun. Don't be a patsy for the hype. If man is doomed, man is doomed. Even with the technological extensions available to humanity, man doesn't have nearly the control that he thinks he does.
12-31-07, 07:36 AM
#156
Señor Member
If planet, Earth, is in peril, it's NOT due to man's activities. The primary cause of current warming is solar activity which isn't fully understood. Yes, man's activities impact the earth, but that impact is negligible compared to other factors such as the sun. Don't be a patsy for the hype. If man is doomed, man is doomed. Even with the technological extensions available to humanity, man doesn't have nearly the control that he thinks he does.
12-31-07, 10:49 AM
#157
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
To quote Instapundit Glenn Reynolds..."I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."
12-31-07, 10:50 AM
#158
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You are not knowledgeable about the subject if you think the debate is over. It's not.
12-31-07, 10:58 AM
#159
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IL-USA
Posts: 1,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
Oh, wait..... what was the question?
~
.
12-31-07, 11:04 AM
#161
Sophomoric Member
Every presidential candidate from both parties (AFAIK) concedes that anthropogenic warming is a fact. And of course the scientists have known this theoretically since 1849, and with increasing empirical evidence since 1959, when atmospheric monitoring began at the observatory in Mauna Loa.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
12-31-07, 11:18 AM
#162
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't have the time to look up all of the links to climate scientist who say that man is not causing global warming all by himself but if you bother, there are many. Not nearly all climate scientist agree. The best and most likely reason is the sun is getting hotter, which is not a disputable fact. The sun goes through cycles and this is one of the hot ones. I am by far not a cliimate scientist but if one believes in global warming as caused by man and is not willing to consider opposing facts then that is very closed minded. Have you seen the figures on the CO2 released by countries that have signed the Kyoto treaty and the US (which has not and will not ratify this so-called treaty)? Again, I don't have the links, but the US is releasing CO2 at a increasing rate but at a much slower increasing rate than the countries that HAVE signed the treaty.
12-31-07, 12:24 PM
#163
Sophomoric Member
I don't have the time to look up all of the links to climate scientist who say that man is not causing global warming all by himself but if you bother, there are many. Not nearly all climate scientist agree. The best and most likely reason is the sun is getting hotter, which is not a disputable fact. The sun goes through cycles and this is one of the hot ones. I am by far not a cliimate scientist but if one believes in global warming as caused by man and is not willing to consider opposing facts then that is very closed minded. Have you seen the figures on the CO2 released by countries that have signed the Kyoto treaty and the US (which has not and will not ratify this so-called treaty)? Again, I don't have the links, but the US is releasing CO2 at a increasing rate but at a much slower increasing rate than the countries that HAVE signed the treaty.
You can start with realclimate.org, the IPCC or the Federal government to learn what real climate scientists (as opposed to your fictional ones) have to say on the topic.
Or you can live on in blissful ignorance. I really don't care. The train has left the station, and you ain't on it.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
12-31-07, 02:36 PM
#164
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Belleville, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 172
Bikes: Wabi Classic fixed, Raleigh Sojourn, Xootr Swift folder
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Various studies of C02 concentration in ice pack show levels at their highest in 600-800,000 years. Furthermore, the amount of the increase in the last 17 years has taken no less than a thousand years during any previous period.
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
Some people like the poster above believe the cause of warming is solar activity. Are they saying this just happened to occur during an unprecedented period of global industrialization?
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
Some people like the poster above believe the cause of warming is solar activity. Are they saying this just happened to occur during an unprecedented period of global industrialization?
12-31-07, 03:34 PM
#165
Sophomoric Member
Of course, it actually is true that solar activity causes changes in the earth's climate, and even more, irregularities in Earth's orbit change our climate also. It's a little scary to think about the consequences if these factors cause warming at the same time that CO2 is increasing. Triple whammy warming?
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
12-31-07, 04:52 PM
#166
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
I don't have the time to look up all of the links to climate scientist who say that man is not causing global warming all by himself but if you bother, there are many.
12-31-07, 05:40 PM
#167
Sophomoric Member
Of course, to date nobody has cited an empirical study refuting anthropogenic warming, apparently because no such studies exist.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-01-08, 01:36 AM
#168
Senior Member
Hey, wasn't the hole in the Ozone layer supposed to kill us all by now?
What ever happened to bird flue? We've still got a disaster recovery procedure on that at work that we paid some high priced consultant to run up for us..talk about a waste of money..guess that's the answere, follow the money.
What ever happened to bird flue? We've still got a disaster recovery procedure on that at work that we paid some high priced consultant to run up for us..talk about a waste of money..guess that's the answere, follow the money.
01-01-08, 02:01 AM
#169
Sophomoric Member
Hey, wasn't the hole in the Ozone layer supposed to kill us all by now?
What ever happened to bird flue? We've still got a disaster recovery procedure on that at work that we paid some high priced consultant to run up for us..talk about a waste of money..guess that's the answere, follow the money.
What ever happened to bird flue? We've still got a disaster recovery procedure on that at work that we paid some high priced consultant to run up for us..talk about a waste of money..guess that's the answere, follow the money.
Bird flu is still there too. People still die from it, and it sometimes spreads from person to person. There have been many flu pandemics in the past and it's pretty foolhardy to believe that it won't ever happen again.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-01-08, 01:13 PM
#170
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Of course, to date nobody has cited an empirical study refuting anthropogenic warming, apparently because no such studies exist.
https://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
That's just the latest such study of which I am aware. Other research and "non-consensus" opinion is widely available:
https://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...V10/N51/C1.jsp
https://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2007-...ing-singer.pdf
https://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
https://forecastingprinciples.com/Pub...armAudit31.pdf
https://downloads.heartland.org/21977.pdf
https://www.his.com/~sepp/Archive/New...s-Tennekes.htm
https://www.zenit.org/article-19481?l=english
https://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
https://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/fin...act_108164.htm
And so on and so forth.
BTW, I've posted most of these before, and relatively recently. They were ignored, as I fully expect them to be this time as well. I suppose I should start a pool as to how long it will take before somebody argues that "nobody has cited" any of this, again.
01-01-08, 02:22 PM
#171
Señor Member
“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."
https://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
That's just the latest such study of which I am aware. Other research and "non-consensus" opinion is widely available:
https://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
That's just the latest such study of which I am aware. Other research and "non-consensus" opinion is widely available:
I looked at the first paper, and the people at realclimate are unimpressed:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ends/#more-509
I glanced through some of the others - it wasn't clear if any of them were actually written by climatologists or not. Most appeared to be "not".
And for that matter, one contrarian paper doesn't suddenly mean that there isn't consensus. Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement - there undoubtedly are a handful of deniers out there trying to prove their theories, but until they manage to convince the rest of the climatologists, you can't claim that this is a anything approaching a mainstream view.
01-01-08, 03:02 PM
#172
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Most of these are trying to call into question the accuracy of the computer models, but that is only a part of the evidence for global climate change.
I looked at the first paper, and the people at realclimate are unimpressed:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ends/#more-509
I glanced through some of the others - it wasn't clear if any of them were actually written by climatologists or not. Most appeared to be "not".
And for that matter, one contrarian paper doesn't suddenly mean that there isn't consensus. Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement - there undoubtedly are a handful of deniers out there trying to prove their theories, but until they manage to convince the rest of the climatologists, you can't claim that this is a anything approaching a mainstream view.
I looked at the first paper, and the people at realclimate are unimpressed:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ends/#more-509
I glanced through some of the others - it wasn't clear if any of them were actually written by climatologists or not. Most appeared to be "not".
And for that matter, one contrarian paper doesn't suddenly mean that there isn't consensus. Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement - there undoubtedly are a handful of deniers out there trying to prove their theories, but until they manage to convince the rest of the climatologists, you can't claim that this is a anything approaching a mainstream view.
Dismissing articles out of hand if they are not produced by climatologists is rich! How many of your precious consensus of scientists are climatologists? All of them? Until you only count climatologists in your "consensus" tripe don't be dismissing non-climatologist work categorically.
Blather on about consensus all you want, and define it as you wish. The trouble is, facts are stubborn things, and truth is unaffected by consensus.
01-01-08, 03:10 PM
#173
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,992
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2494 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times
in
522 Posts
And as for claims that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, the top 1% pay 35% of the nation's federal income tax, the top 10% pay 66%, the top 25% pay 84%, and the top 50% pay nearly the whole bill; something like 97%. So it kind of looks like the twenty-something whiners are getting a free pass on the backs of those evil capitalists they're whining about.
H
01-01-08, 03:12 PM
#174
Sophomoric Member
“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."
https://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
That's just the latest such study of which I am aware. Other research and "non-consensus" opinion is widely available:
[....]
And so on and so forth.
BTW, I've posted most of these before, and relatively recently. They were ignored, as I fully expect them to be this time as well. I suppose I should start a pool as to how long it will take before somebody argues that "nobody has cited" any of this, again.
https://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
That's just the latest such study of which I am aware. Other research and "non-consensus" opinion is widely available:
[....]
And so on and so forth.
BTW, I've posted most of these before, and relatively recently. They were ignored, as I fully expect them to be this time as well. I suppose I should start a pool as to how long it will take before somebody argues that "nobody has cited" any of this, again.
# Richard Ordway Says:
12 December 2007 at 11:02 PM
Joe says: “Anyone want to give me a laymen version?”
Hmmmm, a short answer might look like this:
A new study (that is already full of fatal omissions and inaccuracies) has just come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (Inernational Journal of climatology).
Remember, a study needs at least two things to really be important scientifically:
1. To come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (this is true with this study).
2. This same study has to stand up under world-wide peer-review scrutiny for accuracy (This study has already failed this criteria).
[....]
Anyway, here are some fatal problems with the study as I understand them that invalidate this study:
1. Even if the study were right…(which it is not) mainstream scientists use *three* methods to predict a global warming trend…not just climate computer models (which stand up extremely well for general projections by the way) under world-wide scrutiny…and have for all intents and purposes already correctly predicted the future-(Hansen 1988 in front of Congress and Pinatubo).
Now the three scientific methods for predicting the general future warming trend is:
1. Paleoclimate reconstructions which show that there is a direct correlation between carbon dioxide increasing and the warming that follows.
2. Curent energy imbalance situation between the energy coming in at the top of the atmosphere (about 243 watts per square meter WM2) and fewer watts/M2 now leaving due mostly to the driving force of CO2…ergo the Earth has to heat up.
3. Thirdly, climate computer simulations that have been tested against actual records before they actually happened….and were correct.
Now, on to actual problems with the paper:
Any real scientist, ahem, includes error bars in their projections because of possible variables. The study does not include them. If it did, or they were honest enough to, they would fit the real-life records (enough to overlap the two records) and be a non issue.
Secondly, this study is dishonest and does not show all the evidence available (v1.3 and V1.4)…boing…this paper has just failed peer-review. Science is an *open* process and you just don’t cherry pick or real scienists will correctly invalidate your results.
Third, with this omitted data, the computer models agree with the actual data (enough for it to be a non-issue).
Fourthly, the study does not honestly work out the error bars for the models themselves by giving them reasonable uncertainty for accounted-for unknowns such as El Nino (Enso) and other tropical events.
Now however, there are honest unknowns with the models and how they (slightly) mismatch histoical records…but they are accounted for in the big scheme of things…more work needs to be done…but it does not invalidate what the models are saying for general warming trends…unbrella anyone?
In other words, this study is a strawman and the authors know it.
12 December 2007 at 11:02 PM
Joe says: “Anyone want to give me a laymen version?”
Hmmmm, a short answer might look like this:
A new study (that is already full of fatal omissions and inaccuracies) has just come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (Inernational Journal of climatology).
Remember, a study needs at least two things to really be important scientifically:
1. To come out in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (this is true with this study).
2. This same study has to stand up under world-wide peer-review scrutiny for accuracy (This study has already failed this criteria).
[....]
Anyway, here are some fatal problems with the study as I understand them that invalidate this study:
1. Even if the study were right…(which it is not) mainstream scientists use *three* methods to predict a global warming trend…not just climate computer models (which stand up extremely well for general projections by the way) under world-wide scrutiny…and have for all intents and purposes already correctly predicted the future-(Hansen 1988 in front of Congress and Pinatubo).
Now the three scientific methods for predicting the general future warming trend is:
1. Paleoclimate reconstructions which show that there is a direct correlation between carbon dioxide increasing and the warming that follows.
2. Curent energy imbalance situation between the energy coming in at the top of the atmosphere (about 243 watts per square meter WM2) and fewer watts/M2 now leaving due mostly to the driving force of CO2…ergo the Earth has to heat up.
3. Thirdly, climate computer simulations that have been tested against actual records before they actually happened….and were correct.
Now, on to actual problems with the paper:
Any real scientist, ahem, includes error bars in their projections because of possible variables. The study does not include them. If it did, or they were honest enough to, they would fit the real-life records (enough to overlap the two records) and be a non issue.
Secondly, this study is dishonest and does not show all the evidence available (v1.3 and V1.4)…boing…this paper has just failed peer-review. Science is an *open* process and you just don’t cherry pick or real scienists will correctly invalidate your results.
Third, with this omitted data, the computer models agree with the actual data (enough for it to be a non-issue).
Fourthly, the study does not honestly work out the error bars for the models themselves by giving them reasonable uncertainty for accounted-for unknowns such as El Nino (Enso) and other tropical events.
Now however, there are honest unknowns with the models and how they (slightly) mismatch histoical records…but they are accounted for in the big scheme of things…more work needs to be done…but it does not invalidate what the models are saying for general warming trends…unbrella anyone?
In other words, this study is a strawman and the authors know it.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-01-08, 03:18 PM
#175
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
Most of these are trying to call into question the accuracy of the computer models, but that is only a part of the evidence for global climate change.
I looked at the first paper, and the people at realclimate are unimpressed:
I glanced through some of the others - it wasn't clear if any of them were actually written by climatologists or not. Most appeared to be "not".
And for that matter, one contrarian paper doesn't suddenly mean that there isn't consensus. Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement - there undoubtedly are a handful of deniers out there trying to prove their theories, but until they manage to convince the rest of the climatologists, you can't claim that this is a anything approaching a mainstream view.
Last edited by Six jours; 01-01-08 at 03:26 PM.