A simple question...

[Saigio]

I have a question for those that refuse to belive in Global Warming.
Is it that you refuse to belive in it at all?
Or is it that you refuse to belive it is new?

[Saigio]

A second question, this being for those that don't want to take care of the environment:
What harm can taking care of the environment do? What harm can using more eco-friendly products do to you?

[piratemonkey]

A second question, this being for those that don't want to take care of the environment:
What harm can taking care of the environment do? What harm can using more eco-friendly products do to you?


Coming up with new techonologies that we can market to a world desperate for clean energy sources is going to destroy the US economy, Saigio!

:rolleyes:

[Elrathin]

At this point anyone who doesn't believe the phenomina of Global Warming is happening is a moron.

The only real debate is if it is naturally being cause, the cause is man made, or a combination of the two.

I personally believe it is a combination of the two and that by lessening the man made portion it will reduce it, not entirely, but enough to make a difference.

[bobbylien]

Coming up with new techonologies that we can market to a world desperate for clean energy sources is going to destroy the US economy, Saigio!
Yep, its about the Republicans not wanting to harm the areas of industry that help put them into office.

[potter]

Coming up with new techonologies that we can market to a world desperate for clean energy sources is going to destroy the US economy, Saigio!
Yep, its about the Republicans not wanting to harm the areas of industry that help put them into office.



In all fairness, I think thars plenty of democrats in that basket too.

[underdawg]

I suppose I have my own theory as to why a lot of people on the right refuse to believe in Global Warming, or better yet refuse to do anything to prevent further global warming. I think that certain Christians are so anxious for the end of the world to come, for Jesus to come back, and see the world be destroyed, that any attempt to save the environment to them is a fruitless cause. I think that deep down they want to see the end of days and hope to hasten its arrival so they can be wisked off to heaven.

[Oedipus Rex]

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=636



New climate study finds 'global warming' by subtracting cooling that wasn't there

University of Alabama at Huntsville
By John Christy
May 05, 2004

For Additional Information:
Dr. Roy Spencer, (256) 961-7960
Dr. John Christy, (256) 961-7763
Phillip Gentry, (256) 824-6420

HUNTSVILLE, AL (May 5, 2004) -- A new study of global temperature data reports this week the discovery that significant global warming can be found by subtracting from the temperature record more cooling than was actually there.

"You can't subtract more signal than is there, but that's what they've done," said Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). "They've subtracted more than is actually there."

The study in question, by Fu et al., is published this week in Nature. The authors claim to find significant atmospheric warming over the past 25 years when cooling that has taken place in the stratosphere during that time is removed from the tropospheric temperature data gathered by instruments aboard NOAA satellites.

The problem, says Spencer, is that the study uses a negative "weighting" function that removes more stratospheric cooling than actually appears in the data, thus creating a spurious warming signal.

"Simply put, this method over corrects for stratospheric cooling," said Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at UAH and director of the ESSC. "We tried this same technique in the early 1990s but it didn't work. Instead, Roy developed a method for accurately removing stratospheric temperatures from the data and we published that in 1992."

Spencer and Christy were the first to use data from microwave sounding units aboard NOAA satellites to track global temperature trends. Over the past 13 years they have made several corrections to their dataset as different problems have been identified.

The satellite sensors, which have been in service since late November 1978, show a long-term lower atmosphere global warming trend of about 0.08 C (0.14 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade in the past 25 years. This trend has been corroborated by U.S., British and Russian studies comparing the satellite data to temperature data gathered by weather balloons.

[Oedipus Rex]

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
by Roy W. Spencer
(last updated March 9, 2007)




If We Can't Explain It, It Must Be Human-Induced
The fact is, science doesn't understand why these natural climate variations occur, and can not reliably distinguish between natural and possible human influences on global temperatures. So, if scientists have no other natural explanation for a warming trend, they tend to assume that it is manmade. And it is indeed possible to explain the temperature changes over the last 100 years by carefully tuning climate models with some estimated effects from volcanic eruptions, sunlight intensity variations, manmade aerosol emissions, and greenhouse gas increases. But this is simply one possible explanation -- one that largely ignores possible natural sources of temperature variability.

As a result, how worried we are about global warming is directly related to how much faith we have that natural climate variations (for instance, a small change in low-level cloudiness) are not substantially contributing to our current warmth. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Global warming is our hammer, and so every change we see in the climate system that we can not otherwise explain tends to look like a nail.

[Mayberry]

Is it that you refuse to belive in it at all?
No. I just don't believe it is caused by man. The earth warms, the earth cools. It's a natural cycle. Or is it that you refuse to belive it is new? Nothing new here. Been going on for millions of years. What harm can taking care of the environment do? What harm can using more eco-friendly products do to you? None at all. I have no problem with that. The problem I do have with all this is with legislation-happy politicians that will want to force me to change my life because of all this nonsense. I would love to see someone come up with an economical way to produce hydrogen, I'd love to see clean coal technologies, I'd love to see more nuclear power, more solar power, more wind power...... But not because of some boogey man, but because I'd love for America to be able to tell people like Hugo Chavez and the OPEC Nazis where to go and how to get there. Anyway, there is just too much evidence to the contrary at this point in time for me to buy into man-made global warming.

[Achilles]

[quote]Is it that you refuse to belive in it at all?
No. I just don't believe it is caused by man. The earth warms, the earth cools. It's a natural cycle.


To say that global warming isnt caused, even partially, by man is foolish.

Coal-burning plants alone are responsible for putting 2.5 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide into our atmosphere annually. Automobiles come next responsible for 1.5 billion tons annually.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp

To continually put that much crap in the sky and say that nothing is going to happen is foolishly foolish

[Mayberry]

To say that global warming isnt caused, even partially, by man is foolish. Oh? Saying it is caused by man is foolish. To continually put that much crap in the sky and say that nothing is going to happen is foolishly foolish And to blindly follow some number from some website or other media outlet is foolish as well. Does that number also account for the CO2 that is removed by plant life? Do they mention that CO2 is a natural substance? Should we all stop breathing to limit our CO2 emissions? CO2 is a natural byproduct of the combustion of pretty much anything. Wildfires raged across hundreds of thousands of acres regularly centuries ago, for long periods of time, putting who lnows how much CO2 into the atmosphere. Man has done a superb job of limiting those wildfires in the last century. The point is, that the earth was designed to deal with CO2, it's a natural part of the ecosystem. I wonder how much CO2 dinosaurs put into the atmosphere. Must've been a huge amount. :P

[Achilles]

And to blindly follow some number from some website or other media outlet is foolish as well. Does that number also account for the CO2 that is removed by plant life?
I'll give ya that one, prob not.

Do they mention that CO2 is a natural substance? Should we all stop breathing to limit our CO2 emissions?
Did you seriously just say that? lol

CO2 is a natural byproduct of the combustion of pretty much anything. Wildfires raged across hundreds of thousands of acres regularly centuries ago, for long periods of time, putting who lnows how much CO2 into the atmosphere. Man has done a superb job of limiting those wildfires in the last century.

Trust me, those wildfires have been replaces by cars which we HAVENT been doing a superb job of limiting.

The point is, that the earth was designed to deal with CO2, it's a natural part of the ecosystem. I wonder how much CO2 dinosaurs put into the atmosphere. Must've been a huge amount. :P

Just how far can you push it though, before it completely gives out? With each passing day, the number of cars rises while forestry continues to destroy our Co2 sucker-upers. I think this planet is too forgiving.

[Elrathin]

The point is, that the earth was designed to deal with CO2, it's a natural part of the ecosystem. I wonder how much CO2 dinosaurs put into the atmosphere. Must've been a huge amount. :P


The Earth was designed to deal with CO2, but not necessarily at the rate we are producing.

You say it's foolish to believe that mankind can cause this problem, yet you denounce the majority of scientists and people working in the actually field and instead choose to align yourself with blogs and commentary. How foolish is that?

[piratemonkey]

And to blindly follow some number from some website or other media outlet is foolish as well. Does that number also account for the CO2 that is removed by plant life? Do they mention that CO2 is a natural substance?



Here's the crucial point.

We're not following "some number from some website."Â*Â*By only reading websites that pick and choose the <1% of data supporting your position, you are.

We're following thousands of scientists who've studied these subjects for decades... and their 10,000+ studies.

(I may be rash, but I bet at least some of those scientists know that some CO2 is removed by plant life...Â*Â*call me crazy. :rolleyes:)

[Truth_and_Power]

To say that global warming isnt caused, even partially, by man is foolish. Oh? Saying it is caused by man is foolish. To continually put that much crap in the sky and say that nothing is going to happen is foolishly foolish And to blindly follow some number from some website or other media outlet is foolish as well. Does that number also account for the CO2 that is removed by plant life? Do they mention that CO2 is a natural substance? Should we all stop breathing to limit our CO2 emissions? CO2 is a natural byproduct of the combustion of pretty much anything. Wildfires raged across hundreds of thousands of acres regularly centuries ago, for long periods of time, putting who lnows how much CO2 into the atmosphere. Man has done a superb job of limiting those wildfires in the last century. The point is, that the earth was designed to deal with CO2, it's a natural part of the ecosystem. I wonder how much CO2 dinosaurs put into the atmosphere. Must've been a huge amount. :P


Yeah you're right, there are less trees too, so that would be another reason that CO2 would increase. We have replaced trees with pavement. If you think that "The earth was designed to deal with CO2" then you are not even talking about science anymore. If you think jesus is going to take care of it all, you should just come out and say it instead of trying to represent yourself as someone who disputes the science. Your dinosaurs and breathing arguments are laughable, and even that's being rather generous.

[Oedipus Rex]

'Global Warming' is a religion. It requires faith instead of science. This article also settles the fact that scientists have a vested interest in proving 'global warming' and its dire consequences as it provides them future funding. The guys are funding whores. It has more to do with them financially than it does about real science. Enjoy!


http://www.oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf

[Truth_and_Power]

That is certainly an argument for more study of our atmosphere, and I agree about the complexity of feedback mechanisms making them a difficult matter to discern. However, even without positive or negative feedback, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for over 200 years, so that factor combined with rising energy use worldwide are going to cause a geometric expansion in the human-caused global warming.

More study and assurances against bias would be great. However, arguing against fuel efficient cars and energy efficient light bulbs on this basis is ludicrous. Those are the baby steps that are not remotely painful in comparison to last minute measures that we could end up taking in 50 years if we do nothing now. Now is a time to pick the low hanging fruit and greatly ramp up the science on this subject and most especially, the gathering of data on this subject. We need more satellites monitoring more of the atmosphere all the time.

[Truth_and_Power]

'Global Warming' is a religion. It requires faith instead of science. This article also settles the fact that scientists have a vested interest in proving 'global warming' and its dire consequences as it provides them future funding. The guys are funding whores. It has more to do with them financially than it does about real science. Enjoy!


http://www.oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf


There are plenty of whores on all sides, pretending otherwise shows that you are just trying to cast doubt in accordance with your biases.

[bobbylien]

We need more satellites monitoring more of the atmosphere all the time.

That won't help. We don't need more satelites to tell us that the earth is warming and that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is rising. We need very accurate data from the past 20,000 years, which just isn't going to happen.
Honestly, I don't care if we are right about this one. If Al Gore's dooms day theories are what it takes to get people to do something about the environment and to get our legislators to approve better standards, not to mention reduce our dependence on terrorist supporting countries, thats just awesome. I'm only interested in whats best for this country and our planet. The truth comes second.

[Oedipus Rex]

'Global Warming' is a religion. It requires faith instead of science. This article also settles the fact that scientists have a vested interest in proving 'global warming' and its dire consequences as it provides them future funding. The guys are funding whores. It has more to do with them financially than it does about real science. Enjoy!


http://www.oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf


There are plenty of whores on all sides, pretending otherwise shows that you are just trying to cast doubt in accordance with your biases.


True, but there are thousands of 'scientific whores' on the left that push 'global warming' vs. the few who call 'global warming' what it is... BS.

'...Pretending otherwise shows that you are just trying to cast doubt in accordance with your biases.';)

[bobbylien]

True, but there are thousands of 'scientific whores' on the left that push 'global warming' vs. the few who call 'global warming' what it is... BS.

'...Pretending otherwise shows that you are just trying to cast doubt in accordance with your biases.';)

Do you believe that global warming is happening in some form?

[piratemonkey]

True, but there are thousands of 'scientific whores' on the left that push 'global warming' vs. the few who call 'global warming' what it is... BS.


Let's look at who is the "scientific whore" here.

The author of your linked article, Roy W. Spencer, is a member of the Heartland Institute.

Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
and a member of the Tech Central Science Foundation
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received $95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

and a member of George C. Marshall Institute.

George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.



Those who living in glass brothels shouldn't throw whores.Â*Â*(figuratively, of course)

[Truth_and_Power]

'Global Warming' is a religion. It requires faith instead of science. This article also settles the fact that scientists have a vested interest in proving 'global warming' and its dire consequences as it provides them future funding. The guys are funding whores. It has more to do with them financially than it does about real science. Enjoy!


http://www.oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf


There are plenty of whores on all sides, pretending otherwise shows that you are just trying to cast doubt in accordance with your biases.


True, but there are thousands of 'scientific whores' on the left that push 'global warming' vs. the few who call 'global warming' what it is... BS.

'...Pretending otherwise shows that you are just trying to cast doubt in accordance with your biases.';)


Right so mine are whores and yours are.. uh.. "right". Great argument. Does that come with fries?

[Mayberry]

arguing against fuel efficient cars and energy efficient light bulbs on this basis is ludicrous. Nobody's arguing against them. The argument is about being forced to use them. I want the choice to buy what I want or need. I will not be dictated to, and this is the direction the hard core global warming wackos are moving in.

[Truth_and_Power]

arguing against fuel efficient cars and energy efficient light bulbs on this basis is ludicrous. Nobody's arguing against them. The argument is about being forced to use them. I want the choice to buy what I want or need. I will not be dictated to, and this is the direction the hard core global warming wackos are moving in.


We all share this environment together. If people were decent enough to make logical changes that really wont cost them anything appreciable in the "long run" (12 months), we wouldnt need this kind of regulation. But stupid lazy people are apt to screw things up for all of us. If there weren't laws against it, people would be making bald eagle hats (or not, they'd be extinct) and we'd have coal power plants that resemble those of china. So don't blame the regulators, blame the people who can't do the right thing without being told.

[Oedipus Rex]

True, but there are thousands of 'scientific whores' on the left that push 'global warming' vs. the few who call 'global warming' what it is... BS.

'...Pretending otherwise shows that you are just trying to cast doubt in accordance with your biases.';)

Do you believe that global warming is happening in some form?


I believe the earth goes through cycles. Believing we humans can do very much about it is insane.

[Oedipus Rex]

'Global Warming' is a religion. It requires faith instead of science. This article also settles the fact that scientists have a vested interest in proving 'global warming' and its dire consequences as it provides them future funding. The guys are funding whores. It has more to do with them financially than it does about real science. Enjoy!


http://www.oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf


There are plenty of whores on all sides, pretending otherwise shows that you are just trying to cast doubt in accordance with your biases.


True, but there are thousands of 'scientific whores' on the left that push 'global warming' vs. the few who call 'global warming' what it is... BS.

'...Pretending otherwise shows that you are just trying to cast doubt in accordance with your biases.';)


Right so mine are whores and yours are.. uh.. "right". Great argument. Does that come with fries?



I don't see it that way. Dr. Roy W. Spencer resigned because he couldn't spread the BS the other 'scientists' were spreading. That puts him at least a few steps above your whores.

[Oedipus Rex]

arguing against fuel efficient cars and energy efficient light bulbs on this basis is ludicrous. Nobody's arguing against them. The argument is about being forced to use them. I want the choice to buy what I want or need. I will not be dictated to, and this is the direction the hard core global warming wackos are moving in.


That the only way the wackos can cause change. They cannot win when it comes to ideas but must resort to communist tactics.;)

[Truth_and_Power]

arguing against fuel efficient cars and energy efficient light bulbs on this basis is ludicrous. Nobody's arguing against them. The argument is about being forced to use them. I want the choice to buy what I want or need. I will not be dictated to, and this is the direction the hard core global warming wackos are moving in.


That the only way the wackos can cause change. They cannot win when it comes to ideas but must resort to communist tactics.;)


Well the next time you eat fish, you can thank the "communists", because if there were no regulations there would be barely a single bit of safe and edible fish on this continent.Â*Â*And next time you are relaxing on the weekend, try and think about why it is you get saturday and sunday off of work.

I guess this is the only way you can attempt to win arguments, by calling all of us communists and wackos and all scientists who oppose you a "whore". Usually those who resort first and most frequently to name calling are the ones who have the greatest idea deficit.

[piratemonkey]

Let's look at who is the "scientific whore" here.

The author of your linked article, Roy W. Spencer, is a member of the Heartland Institute.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
and a member of the Tech Central Science Foundation
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received $95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
and a member of George C. Marshall Institute.

George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Those who living in glass brothels shouldn't throw whores.Â*Â*(figuratively, of course)


No comment regarding your Big Oil "scientific whore," Oedipus?

[Mayberry]

If people were decent enough to make logical changes that really wont cost them anything appreciable in the "long run" (12 months), we wouldnt need this kind of regulation. So being forced to buy a hybrid won't cost me anything? My cars are paid for, and I don't plan on buying any time soon, like not in the next 10 years. So I guess that makes me "stupid and lazy", eh? If there weren't laws against it, people would be making bald eagle hats (or not, they'd be extinct) and we'd have coal power plants that resemble those of china. So don't blame the regulators, blame the people who can't do the right thing without being told. There again, examples from a less "enlightened" age. Do you really think someone would buy a bald eagle hat in this day and age? And as far as power plants and such go, sure there needs to be some regulation and oversight. But again, do you think anyone today would stand idly by as black smoke clouds billowed from them? Can you imagine the public uproar? No regulation necessary.

[potter]

If people were decent enough to make logical changes that really wont cost them anything appreciable in the "long run" (12 months), we wouldnt need this kind of regulation. So being forced to buy a hybrid won't cost me anything? My cars are paid for, and I don't plan on buying any time soon, like not in the next 10 years. So I guess that makes me "stupid and lazy", eh? If there weren't laws against it, people would be making bald eagle hats (or not, they'd be extinct) and we'd have coal power plants that resemble those of china. So don't blame the regulators, blame the people who can't do the right thing without being told. There again, examples from a less "enlightened" age. Do you really think someone would buy a bald eagle hat in this day and age? And as far as power plants and such go, sure there needs to be some regulation and oversight. But again, do you think anyone today would stand idly by as black smoke clouds billowed from them? Can you imagine the public uproar? No regulation necessary.


But it's preceisely that public uproar that effects the regulations.

[Oedipus Rex]

arguing against fuel efficient cars and energy efficient light bulbs on this basis is ludicrous. Nobody's arguing against them. The argument is about being forced to use them. I want the choice to buy what I want or need. I will not be dictated to, and this is the direction the hard core global warming wackos are moving in.


That the only way the wackos can cause change. They cannot win when it comes to ideas but must resort to communist tactics.;)


Well the next time you eat fish, you can thank the "communists", because if there were no regulations there would be barely a single bit of safe and edible fish on this continent. And next time you are relaxing on the weekend, try and think about why it is you get saturday and sunday off of work.

I guess this is the only way you can attempt to win arguments, by calling all of us communists and wackos and all scientists who oppose you a "whore". Usually those who resort first and most frequently to name calling are the ones who have the greatest idea deficit.


Tell your story walking. I don't need to work for a living anymore. I just choose to work on projects that interest me. How the hell did those 'communists, whores, and wackos' help me accomplish that?

[Oedipus Rex]

Let's look at who is the "scientific whore" here.

The author of your linked article, Roy W. Spencer, is a member of the Heartland Institute.
Heartland Institute has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
and a member of the Tech Central Science Foundation
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received $95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
and a member of George C. Marshall Institute.

George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Those who living in glass brothels shouldn't throw whores. (figuratively, of course)


No comment regarding your Big Oil "scientific whore," Oedipus?



I already replied. Go back and do some reading.

[bobbylien]

There again, examples from a less "enlightened" age. Do you really think someone would buy a bald eagle hat in this day and age?

Are you serious? Do you really believe that people wouldn't go out hunting Eagles if they werent protected?

[Truth_and_Power]

If people were decent enough to make logical changes that really wont cost them anything appreciable in the "long run" (12 months), we wouldnt need this kind of regulation. So being forced to buy a hybrid won't cost me anything? My cars are paid for, and I don't plan on buying any time soon, like not in the next 10 years. So I guess that makes me "stupid and lazy", eh? If there weren't laws against it, people would be making bald eagle hats (or not, they'd be extinct) and we'd have coal power plants that resemble those of china. So don't blame the regulators, blame the people who can't do the right thing without being told. There again, examples from a less "enlightened" age. Do you really think someone would buy a bald eagle hat in this day and age? And as far as power plants and such go, sure there needs to be some regulation and oversight. But again, do you think anyone today would stand idly by as black smoke clouds billowed from them? Can you imagine the public uproar? No regulation necessary.


Companies respond a lot better to regulation than to the fickle court of public opinion. The nice thing about regulations from a business perspective is that you know in 2013 you have to have X and Y in place, and than in 2018 you will need Z. The hardest thing about regulations is when whatever legislative body you're dealing with waffles on the issue. Then when you're making 5-10 year plans, you are unsure what you should do. Of course that's nothing compared to trying to predict public opinion just 6 months down the road. It's not like people complain and then a year later you've got scrubbers on your power plant. To fix up a batch of power plants takes many years and a lot of financial planning. Plus then if one power company gets criticised and another doesn't you've created a competitive advantage for one company based soley on the fact that some newspaper reporter felt like slamming one company and not another. This is not a situation that behooves price-reducing competition.

I guess that's kind of cute and all if you think Mr. Locke was right and in the absence of corrupting factors everyone would play nice. The only problem with that theory is that there are zero examples of this. I'm no socialist, I'm all for the free economy and its benefits. However I cannot take the point of view of absolute libertarianism because I see too clearly the benefits that regulation and oversight have in some areas.

[Truth_and_Power]

arguing against fuel efficient cars and energy efficient light bulbs on this basis is ludicrous. Nobody's arguing against them. The argument is about being forced to use them. I want the choice to buy what I want or need. I will not be dictated to, and this is the direction the hard core global warming wackos are moving in.


That the only way the wackos can cause change. They cannot win when it comes to ideas but must resort to communist tactics.;)


Well the next time you eat fish, you can thank the "communists", because if there were no regulations there would be barely a single bit of safe and edible fish on this continent.Â*Â*And next time you are relaxing on the weekend, try and think about why it is you get saturday and sunday off of work.

I guess this is the only way you can attempt to win arguments, by calling all of us communists and wackos and all scientists who oppose you a "whore".Â*Â*Usually those who resort first and most frequently to name calling are the ones who have the greatest idea deficit.


Tell your story walking. I don't need to work for a living anymore. I just choose to work on projects that interest me. How the hell did those 'communists, whores, and wackos' help me accomplish that?


I knew we'd get to the part where you're a self made man and you don't need no help from nobody. When you actually stop to think about what this country would look like without any regulatory or oversight agencies at all every existing, feel free to restart this discussion.

[piratemonkey]

I don't see it that way. Dr. Roy W. Spencer resigned because he couldn't spread the BS the other 'scientists' were spreading. That puts him at least a few steps above your whores.


So he takes money from people who have a vested, monitary interest in a specific viewpoint...

And the 99% of scientists on our side take money from a neutral funder...

Explain how those are equivalent?

You've been caught using someone with a documented conflict of interest as a source while at the same time calling those without a documented conflict of interest "whores."

I think the word for that is hypocrisy.

[bobbylien]

I don't see it that way. Dr. Roy W. Spencer resigned because he couldn't spread the BS the other 'scientists' were spreading. That puts him at least a few steps above your whores.


So he takes money from people who have a vested, monitary interest in a specific viewpoint...

And the 99% of scientists on our side take money from a neutral funder...

Explain how those are equivalent?

You've been caught using someone with a documented conflict of interest as a source while at the same time calling those without a documented conflict of interest "whores."

I think the word for that is hypocrisy.

I agree. But do you have something to counter his theory? I would like to see it. Having a conflict of interest doesn't prove his science wrong. I know he was intentionally vague and it might be tough to completely rebut, but I'd like to see anything, I'm sure there is an article out there somewhere that you can point me to.. this guy is a pretty well known figure.

[Oedipus Rex]

I don't see it that way. Dr. Roy W. Spencer resigned because he couldn't spread the BS the other 'scientists' were spreading. That puts him at least a few steps above your whores.


So he takes money from people who have a vested, monitary interest in a specific viewpoint...

And the 99% of scientists on our side take money from a neutral funder...

Explain how those are equivalent?

You've been caught using someone with a documented conflict of interest as a source while at the same time calling those without a documented conflict of interest "whores."

I think the word for that is hypocrisy.


The 'scientists' you uphold get grants and goverment dollars. Its in their best interests to predict doom and gloom so they can ask for more 'research dollars'.

http://www.oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf

Political influences on climate research have long pervaded the whole system. Both government funding managers and scientists realize that science programs, research funding, and careers depend upon global warming remaining a serious threat. There seems to be an unspoken pressure on climate scientists to find new ways in which mankind might be causing a climate catastrophe -- yet no emphasis at all on finding possible climate stabilizing mechanisms.

[Truth_and_Power]

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=636



New climate study finds 'global warming' by subtracting cooling that wasn't there

University of Alabama at Huntsville
By John Christy
May 05, 2004

For Additional Information:
Dr. Roy Spencer, (256) 961-7960
Dr. John Christy, (256) 961-7763
Phillip Gentry, (256) 824-6420

HUNTSVILLE, AL (May 5, 2004) -- A new study of global temperature data reports this week the discovery that significant global warming can be found by subtracting from the temperature record more cooling than was actually there.

"You can't subtract more signal than is there, but that's what they've done," said Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). "They've subtracted more than is actually there."

The study in question, by Fu et al., is published this week in Nature. The authors claim to find significant atmospheric warming over the past 25 years when cooling that has taken place in the stratosphere during that time is removed from the tropospheric temperature data gathered by instruments aboard NOAA satellites.

The problem, says Spencer, is that the study uses a negative "weighting" function that removes more stratospheric cooling than actually appears in the data, thus creating a spurious warming signal.

"Simply put, this method over corrects for stratospheric cooling," said Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at UAH and director of the ESSC. "We tried this same technique in the early 1990s but it didn't work.Â*Â*Instead, Roy developed a method for accurately removing stratospheric temperatures from the data and we published that in 1992."

Spencer and Christy were the first to use data from microwave sounding units aboard NOAA satellites to track global temperature trends. Over the past 13 years they have made several corrections to their dataset as different problems have been identified.

The satellite sensors, which have been in service since late November 1978, show a long-term lower atmosphere global warming trend of about 0.08 C (0.14 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade in the past 25 years. This trend has been corroborated by U.S., British and Russian studies comparing the satellite data to temperature data gathered by weather balloons.


Rebuttal:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200001

I would say the main difference in our essential positions on what should be done is that I think we should take a much more cautious approach, whereas you're 100% sure that it's not a problem and nothing needs to be done. I think we should do more science and look to limit our emissions in fairly non-disruptive ways, as well as develop new technology that could be very useful if some of the worse-case scenarios play out. You think we should invest more money in putting out press releases for those that oppose emission restraint or even energy efficiency.

Regardless of who is right, I can say without a doubt that you and I are merely reading the scientific output of those who are educated to understand these matters and making a judgement call which is probably heavily influenced by our biases. Based on that, the person who is 100% sure they are right and therefore throws caution to the wind is definitely wrong, and the person who takes a moderate approach and tries to play it safe is definitely right.

[Oedipus Rex]

arguing against fuel efficient cars and energy efficient light bulbs on this basis is ludicrous. Nobody's arguing against them. The argument is about being forced to use them. I want the choice to buy what I want or need. I will not be dictated to, and this is the direction the hard core global warming wackos are moving in.


That the only way the wackos can cause change. They cannot win when it comes to ideas but must resort to communist tactics.;)


Well the next time you eat fish, you can thank the "communists", because if there were no regulations there would be barely a single bit of safe and edible fish on this continent. And next time you are relaxing on the weekend, try and think about why it is you get saturday and sunday off of work.

I guess this is the only way you can attempt to win arguments, by calling all of us communists and wackos and all scientists who oppose you a "whore". Usually those who resort first and most frequently to name calling are the ones who have the greatest idea deficit.


Tell your story walking. I don't need to work for a living anymore. I just choose to work on projects that interest me. How the hell did those 'communists, whores, and wackos' help me accomplish that?


I knew we'd get to the part where you're a self made man and you don't need no help from nobody. When you actually stop to think about what this country would look like without any regulatory or oversight agencies at all every existing, feel free to restart this discussion.




You see this as a way 'out', huh? Oh, well... don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Oedipus Rex]

Regardless of who is right, I can say without a doubt that you and I are merely reading the scientific output of those who are educated to understand these matters and making a judgement call which is probably heavily influenced by our biases. Based on that, the person who is 100% sure they are right and therefore throws caution to the wind is definitely wrong, and the person who takes a moderate approach and tries to play it safe is definitely right.



I disagree. My POV is that the one who wants proof of humans causing 'global warming' before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an unproven theories is right. The one who'd impose severe restrictions/taxes on society, businesses, etc. in the name of 'global warming' is doing nothing more than trying to engineer massive social change to further their political agendas. That's just plain wrong.

[Truth_and_Power]

Regardless of who is right, I can say without a doubt that you and I are merely reading the scientific output of those who are educated to understand these matters and making a judgement call which is probably heavily influenced by our biases.Â*Â*Based on that, the person who is 100% sure they are right and therefore throws caution to the wind is definitely wrong, and the person who takes a moderate approach and tries to play it safe is definitely right.



I disagree. My POV is that the one who wants proof of humans causing 'global warming' before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an unproven theories is right. The one who'd impose severe restrictions/taxes on society, businesses, etc. in the name of 'global warming' is doing nothing more than trying to engineer massive social change to further their political agendas. That's just plain wrong.


Waiting for 100% sure-thing proof before taking even minor action to avoid a serious negative effect is the very definition of throwing caution to the wind. I mean you're against efficient lightbulbs and cars.. these are not the changes that would cause "severe restrictions/taxes on society" unless you're an incandescent lightbulb enthusiast. Also, putting in some kind of % floor on renewables is a good way to give some push to the technology that can eventually make these things much cheaper. I'm not talking about 50% solar, I'm talking about 5-10% renewables. And as for severe impacts on society, how 'bout those oil wars? Good times.

[Oedipus Rex]

Regardless of who is right, I can say without a doubt that you and I are merely reading the scientific output of those who are educated to understand these matters and making a judgement call which is probably heavily influenced by our biases. Based on that, the person who is 100% sure they are right and therefore throws caution to the wind is definitely wrong, and the person who takes a moderate approach and tries to play it safe is definitely right.



I disagree. My POV is that the one who wants proof of humans causing 'global warming' before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an unproven theories is right. The one who'd impose severe restrictions/taxes on society, businesses, etc. in the name of 'global warming' is doing nothing more than trying to engineer massive social change to further their political agendas. That's just plain wrong.


Waiting for 100% sure-thing proof before taking even minor action to avoid a serious negative effect is the very definition of throwing caution to the wind. I mean you're against efficient lightbulbs and cars.. these are not the changes that would cause "severe restrictions/taxes on society" unless you're an incandescent lightbulb enthusiast. Also, putting in some kind of % floor on renewables is a good way to give some push to the technology that can eventually make these things much cheaper. I'm not talking about 50% solar, I'm talking about 5-10% renewables. And as for severe impacts on society, how 'bout those oil wars? Good times.


100%? Hell, you GW zealots don't even factor in H20 accurately in your dire climate models in which you base so much of your 'faith'. I'd be surprised if you guys have 'proven' any GW in the range of 5% but you're saying that massive societal change will save this doomed planet. Give me a break!

If the consumer wants more efficient cars, homes and freakin' lightbulbs, let 'em have them. I could really care less. If you guys want to force me to buy into your 'Global Warming' religion via restrictions, taxes, etc., I'll fight you tooth and nail. In that respect, you'd be no better that any other failed communist/socialist society.

[Truth_and_Power]

...will save this doomed planet. Give me a break!


Doomed planet? You must be getting your info from the X-Files because I don't think anyone has said that. I don't even buy into the worse hurricanes theory. I just think that we'll be looking at climatic change that could significantly shift rainfall patterns which would disrupt agriculture and water supplies, and rising sea levels as well. More diseases? maybe. How about you give me a break with the strawman b.s. and I promise not to theorize a mantle-fueled planetary explosion based on atmospheric temperature rise.


If the consumer wants more efficient cars, homes and freakin' lightbulbs, let 'em have them. I could really care less.

I think you mean "I couldn't care less". And yes, I see that, therein lies the need for regulation, because some people insist on destructive behavior.

[Mayberry]

And yes, I see that, therein lies the need for regulation, because some people insist on destructive behavior. But regulation of EVERYONE because of one person is not justified. If I ran a company, I'd run it responsibly, because it's the right thing to do. Just because some other doofus wants to run around screwing everything up doesn't justify regulating me to death.

[piratemonkey]

http://www.oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf


Those scientists get money for research... regardless of their position on climate change.Â*Â*That's the point of gov't as opposed to business financing of science.Â*Â*It removes the profit motive.

My office mate gets federal money to research oral fungal infections... is she beholden to the fungus lobby?Â*Â*:D

On top of that, university scientists make the same amount of money, regardless of the results of their research.Â*Â*So, again, explain to us how your source is less biased than federally-financed researchers.

The argument that your Big Oil financed "scientific whore" is promoting doesn't pass casual inspection.

[Truth_and_Power]

And yes, I see that, therein lies the need for regulation, because some people insist on destructive behavior. But regulation of EVERYONE because of one person is not justified. If I ran a company, I'd run it responsibly, because it's the right thing to do. Just because some other doofus wants to run around screwing everything up doesn't justify regulating me to death.


What would you have us do?Â*Â*Allow the selfish and ignorant to pollute? The only way to prevent government from regulating an industry with these kinds of problems is for that industry to pre-emptively regulate itself, which is what organizations like AMA and The [state] Bar attempt to do.

[Mayberry]

The only way to prevent government from regulating an industry with these kinds of problems is for that industry to pre-emptively regulate itself, which is what organizations like AMA and The [state] Bar attempt to do.
And that is exactly how it should be.