State Rep. Larry Powell, R-Garden City, has sent the book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years†to state legislators and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in an effort to spread the word that global warming is no big deal.
The book, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery — well-known climate skeptics — discounts the role of human-generated greenhouse gases in climate change and suggests global warming is just a natural cycle of warming.
It’s fine for lawmakers to get opposing points of view, as long as they understand that the view Singer and Avery represent is decidedly in the minority among scientists and largely discredited.
They’d do better to read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s landmark report (“Summary for policymakers†online at ipcc.ch). Or read Elizabeth Kolbert’s book “Field Notes From a Catastrophe.†Or check out the RealClimate site, run by respected climate scientists who have refuted the Singer and Avery book’s assertions point by point (they called it “Unstoppable Hot Airâ€).
With so much hard data and consensus science out there, why would lawmakers want to hang important policy decisions on this marginal book?
145 Comments
Oh Randy now you’ve done it….Hank is going to explode now that you sided with Cosmos.
yep……….Hank and the rest of the science deniers are going to just go plain ape-s*** when they see this thread.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
PBS interview with Dr. Singer.
Here is the key phrase for outlander and the rest of the deniers to digest:
“It’s fine for lawmakers to get opposing points of view, as long as they understand that the view Singer and Avery represent is decidedly in the minority among scientists and largely discredited.”
Have the noticed that the vast majority of the deniers here are the “conservative”, psuedo-christian, anti-evolution, anti-choice and praise the bushnistas?
Is there a correlation?
I would almost bet with no more info. than given in the above, the guy circulating the book is also an evolution denier.
From the Singer interview article
QUESTION: While there are scientists who hold views similar to yours on this subject, there are a very large number who don’t. I want your reflections on what’s happened in terms of the way this has played out with the intergovernmental panel on change, with the statements that a majority of scientists believe this or that, because there are a lot of scientists who feel very passionately there is an issue here. What do you think has been going on? Because there’s a tremendous amount of people involved in modeling, an activity which you think is fairly limited in terms of what it’s delivered so far. How are they getting away with it?
ANSWER: Well, when you start talking about the question of scientific consensus, I think one should be very careful to say, first of all, that science is not decided by vote. I don’t take a poll and then determine what is the correct answer. Science is decided by observations that either confirm or deny a theory, a hypothesis. And if they confirm the theory, you go on to the next set of observations and see whether it still holds. And if it works against the hypothesis, you try to develop a new hypothesis.
That’s how science makes progress.
And, in fact, historically, every bit of scientific progress has come about because the observations or the experimental facts did not support the current theory. And, usually, these new experiments were done by a small group, or the new theory was proposed by a single individual, even. Take Albert Einstein, as an example, against the great opposition of the large scientific community. But science is a wonderful subject. It works itself out. The truth eventually emerges. So, this is my preface.
In the climate business, the situation is more complicated because there are also political factors involved, and frankly, there’s also money involved. This is an unusual situation. There’s no politics attached to the theory of relativity, for example. But there is to climate science. There are no large sums of money attached to relativity, but there are to climate science.
The federal government pumps about $2 billion a year into climate research. Now, this money has to be spent by someone. It supports a lot of jobs. It supports a lot of people. And inevitably, many of these people begin to feel that what they’re doing is tremendously important and vital. Otherwise, they couldn’t really live with themselves. They’ve talked themselves into the fact that the work they’re doing is somehow helping humanity deal with some kind of a problem.
way to go outlander the denier………….post from the discredited “scientist”
You’re not helping your case.
The best and brightest of the Man-Made Global Warming Scientists went head to head in a debate on National Public Radio with a team lead by Dr. Lindzen. The debate was titled “Global Warming is not a crisis.”
Dr. Lindzen’s team won the debate.
“In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.”
The url is:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151
Her come the deniers……………….
of course, since Prices aren’t here, McCluer (the troll-boy) takes the lead>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.”
Even more people voted for bush. How did that turn out.
The RealClimate.org Website is owned and operated by the former communications director for Al Gore. She has aligned herself with organizations such as moveon.org and share a common Website with them.
Perhaps Randy Scholfield is not understanding that computer climate models used for predictions are neither accurate or reliable. cosmos has written that the computer climate models are not accurate.
cosmos has also written that Climate is too complex to make accurate prediction.
Perhaps Randy Scholfield does not understand the term complex.
Science isn’t decided by ‘debate.’ If that were so, your kids would still be learning the the earth is the center of the universe, that horoscopes are valid predictors of each day’s events, and that smoking doesn’t have anything to do with lung cancer.
Science isn’t a democracy. Not all ideas have equal merit, nor do they deserve equal time.
The majority of the experts in the relevant fields agree that the data supports the contentions that global warming is occurring and that increased CO2 levels are directly involved.
Don’t like the data? Neither do I. So what? Reality doesn’t conform to ideology.
Here’s where ScienceDebate 2008 is needed . . .
Will our next president base their policies on the overwhelming consensus of experts in the relevant fields, or will our next Fearless LeaderTM blindly ignore reality and propel us toward more self-destruction?
No one is saying that Global Warming isn’t happening, it’s the cause that is being disputed.
The alarmists state that co2 is causing it, when in reality man-made co2 contributes a tiny fraction of green house gases. A year of active oscillation with El Nino does more than an entire century of co2 does in affecting climate.
Trying to legislate the climate is like trying to legislate how the earth spins on its own axis.
More solutions for alternative energy sources – yes.
More federal and state dollars to research on climate – yes.
Moving towards a petroleum free dependence – yes.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned. That seems to be the axiom concerning climate change here. I have my doubts as to mans’ causing climate change, but I have no doubt the earth is going through a warming period. So what, besides having pillow fights, is this country going to do to address the changes?
If the food belt moves north, it will mean highe4r temps and less water for Kansas. Dryer climate could lead to dust bowls again. That will displace a large number of people. Is anybody ready for that? Got plans to ensure people are fed? Or is everybody going to point fingers and say the usual, I told you so, nonsense.
It’s normal human behavior for humans who (1) are largely unaware of themselves, congenitally, and (2) are led by (3) those who have a financial stake in the outcome, ie they lose money each time the EPA gains real political power.
In this instance Powell of Garden City isn’t so different from Regular. Regular ’s lack of self-awareness is often on display here. For example, he can’t seem to break out of a kind of trap where his online relationships blow up in his face; it appears his lack of awareness prevents him from avoiding such problems. I’d bet dollars to donuts that Powell, a white male Republic stuck out in Garden City, is the same way.
As are many white male Republics. And they’re led by those who fall in bucket number 3 above, movement conservatives like Charles Koch who have the personal fortune to invest in think tanks like Cato. Cato pays for the distribution of ideas generated by Avery and Singer, and once in a while they snag a real scientist like Lindzen.
White, un-aware Republics (ie, half the GOP’s base, at least) pick it up. If they’re isolated Republics, like Powell, they send it as “news” to the governor. Others, like Regular, lap it up.
It’s an old story. :D
Pedant, this thread is about Global Warming and legislation – not me.
Running out of original ideas or did you not yet accumulate enough scientific background to make a decision on your own without result to ad hominem?
It ain’t ad hominem if it’s true.
I see then Pedant, so you readily admit you are incapable of independent thought on the issue.
And you should give me credit, at least I didn’t call you a dipshit.
Don’t let it go to your head. You should thank political_mom instead. :D
As are many white male Republics. And they’re led by those who fall in bucket number 3 above, movement conservatives like Charles Koch who have the personal fortune to invest in think tanks like Cato.
Pedant: Are you making “white male Republican” an insult?? Chuckle… Well you brown Democrat women will believe anything!
No insults intended. :D
Randy asked, “With so much hard data and consensus science out there, why would lawmakers want to hang important policy decisions on this marginal book?”
And I answered. Would you care to bet on the demographics of those lawmakers who “want to hang important policy decisions on this … book?”
:lol:
OK I will weigh in, it is true that Global warming seems to follow a cycle. And whether caused by humans or not it has occurred throughout the history of the Earth. And yes it has always been a “big deal” often causing the extinction of species and making the living pretty tough. CO2 levels do seem to play a role in it, as shown that during these event of warming the CO2 levels have always been at their highest.
The only different today is what part is man playing in it? CO2 is a natural element in nature and is trapped within a icy layer that during warming is melted and released. Along with Hydrogen which if it builds up to a toxic level will not just make it hard to breath but can cause an eruption of a fiery furnace effect.
In reality we can debate and argue the day long and there is nothing that can be done.
It has happen without human input before and will again in sprite of our efforts.
So the question is whether we can slow it down by controlling our input. But people it will happen again and the world will change. It has always happened and has always change the earth to some degree. Plants die, herbivores die, Carnivores die and man being one of the most adaptable of all species changes and some will die too. The survivors will more then likely take to living under ground and using natural ways of staying cool depending on where they live. As the opposite of warming will also happen, with some regions suffering colder and more prolonged winters. But look at the bright side, perhaps that U.S. Spy satellite will crash into Yellowstone park and cause the inevitable eruption of the volcanic fissures that will wipe out over seventy five percent of the U.S. population ( Another one of those predictions from my smart friend. But just leave out the part about the spy satellite that was my idea).
Pedant
Posted January 27, 2008 at 8:09 am
“And I answered. Would you care to bet on the demographics of those lawmakers who “want to hang important policy decisions on this … book?””
The demographics of those on the IPCC side with man made climate change is probably just as telling.
It is after all, a movement led by the whitest male in America, Al Gore.
Someone needs to tell Randy that the IPCC is a governmental political body. It is not a group of scientists out to ’save the world’. It’s just another group of statist bureaucrats out to take more control. They use data only if it furthers their goals and dismisses the rest. The IPCC is really no different than your average presidential campaign.
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. You think Al Gore is behind the movement to build awareness of global warming, especially warming caused by human behavior. You argue that the Democrats stand to gain political power if they can proscribe legal bounds to American behavior. And as the leader of that movement, Al Gore stands to gain the most of all the Democrats.
No argument here.
What about the people behind the other side? What’s their stake in this? What do they stand to gain?
Truth, justice, and the American way? :wink:
Or ??
“white male Republican” an insult IS an insult!
Another leading question Pedant, you would be in trouble if we were in court for leading the witness.
The reason the Kyoto Treaty was not ratified in the first place, because it would have led the United States to economic disaster. The U.S. is not a geographically tiny country like England or Germany where you can drive across the country in a couple of hours – thus the dependence of cars and trucks that have to drive for many hours and sometimes days to cross the country.
The United States is not a country of Socialistic feel good situations like those in the European Union. They want a King and a Queen. They want a nanny state government to see to their every need from cradle to grave.
The current trend in man-made Global Warming is being pushed politically, not scientifically. Al Gore has become a multi-millionaire with his carbon trading firm based in London England. Gore has a financial interest in it.
The reason there are skeptics is the same reason scientists of the past went against consensus on the way things work and they proved the consensus wrong.
The reason there are climate scientists that disagree with the consensus, because they have taken the same data supplied to the “consensus scientists” and have come up with different results.
There are other avenues to take in making the nation energy independent and energy conservative.
We don’t have to do the Kyoto Treaty model here in the United States, we can do it our way. The climate cannot be controlled and this is what the skeptical scientists are saying.
As I said before it’s the cause that is being argued about, not whether it is happening. Climate cannot be legislated, the notion is ridiculous.
….and, the deniers continue to whine!
One trend that’s all to prevalent in the US today is this. Certain Americans have gained enormous leverage — mostly financial leverage gained under the guise of “1st Amendment rights” — to externalize certain economic costs. This is sometimes called “socializing the cost while privatizing the gain,” but that’s the same thing.
A very well known failure of markets occurs where the price of an inelastic good, commodities like oil fit the bill here; note that oil is an outlier as a commodity because its price elasticity with respect to demand has an absolute value between zero and one), fails to account for all the costs associated with the manufacture, distribution, and especially the use (the normal use for which the product was intended).
In this case, and without pointing fingers, let me note upfront how this works in the oil bidness. If an oil company can any of the costs involved in manufacture (ie, extraction), distribution, and use of its oil products onto those who don’t consume, or under-consume, its products, then its done a helluva thing. Its customers have no say in the price calculation: they have to have gasoline and they’ll pay whatever to get it. But if an oil company can pass costs onto others, it can really make the gross margin line look sweet.
What I’m saying is that those who fund Avery and Singer, those who are behind THAT movement, have a direct financial stake in the public’s political disdain of laws that might make the oil manufacturer capture all its costs — and lower it’s gross margin % in the bargain.
Why don’t you guys ever talk about that? If you rail against Gore and his movement to raise awareness, then why do you never talk about the movement on the other side?
Global Warming; much to do about nothing. Its advocates sound like a bunch of cackling crows. Lots of annoying noise but they don’t ever do anything about it, and are pretty much impotent even if they tried. But they don’t even try, they just attempt to sound like they actually know something and care.
What a joke of mass hysteria.
I hate Word and I hate the lack of preview here, but I do believe I’m going to have to grow to love Word because we damn sure lack preview. :lol:
What I’m saying is that certain Americans, powerful captains of the oil industry especially, stand to gain personally if they can pass costs onto others. Books like Avery’s and Singer’s, works that fly in the face of scientific concensus, are tools by which such companies can reduce the Congressional pressure they feel to do one of two things. One, pass the externalized costs on to their customers by raising their price. Or two, eat the cost either in part or in whole themselves.
The problem is that raising the price of oil is out of their control. Which means, of course, that internalizing these costs comes out of their pocketbook.
Why do you guys never talk about that half of the equation?
ProudMan, you said,
ProudMan, do you have a list of the IPCC authors and their credentials? Please, primary sources only.
Thanks in advance.
“The best and brightest of the Man-Made Global Warming Scientists went head to head in a debate on National Public Radio with a team lead by Dr. Lindzen. The debate was titled ‘Global Warming is not a crisis.’
“Dr. Lindzen’s team won the debate.
“‘In this debate, the proposition was: ‘Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.’ In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.’
Irrelevant. Science is not decided by popular debate witnessed by laymen. And the following is also disingenuous:
“Well, when you start talking about the question of scientific consensus, I think one should be very careful to say, first of all, that science is not decided by vote. I don’t take a poll and then determine what is the correct answer.”
No, here is how science is decided. It is decided by research of testable hypotheses and then replications of that research. Hypotheses that withstand multiple tests by multiple researchers are going to end up being supported by the majority of researchers within a given field. Therefore, a huge majority position by researchers within a given field is significant. Singer’s reply is disingenous, and I will wager that he knew that it was when he said it.
As for Singer’s statement here:
“And, in fact, historically, every bit of scientific progress has come about because the observations or the experimental facts did not support the current theory.”
This is outright bullsh*t. Most scientific progress occurs within a theory. Yes, when one theory is supplanted by another that better conforms to experimental observations, then that is also progress, but that is far, far from the only kind of progress that is made.
This statement is downright false, and it would correctly draw into question what Singer says.
“Someone needs to tell Randy that the IPCC is a governmental political body. It is not a group of scientists out to ’save the world’. It’s just another group of statist bureaucrats out to take more control. They use data only if it furthers their goals and dismisses the rest. The IPCC is really no different than your average presidential campaign.”
Flat out false. Probably arising from the shallow reflexiveness of seeing “the UN” and running with it from there.
Randy, it’s called Global Climate change now. It’s just another emotional call. The environmentalists want to control our lives just like the press wants to spread doom and gloom as usual. I’m not going to change my energy wasting ways. And reserve the right to fard when I please.
ksagnostic –
Let’s see if ProudMan can back up his claim. If he has evidence to back up what he says, fine.
If he doesn’t, he’s either lying or he doesn’t understand the importance of evidence – hardly a promising trait in one who’s arguing science.
nunyer, I really like the formatting you use to set off comments.
Care to share the XTML tags for that? :D
I apologize up front for being too lazy to wade through the sitemap for WordPress!
I don’t have it all figured out, not by a long shot – the blockquoted material is waaaaay too small and I’m also too lazy to fix it.
But the formatting is [blockquote] and [/blockquote], with < instead of the [ and > instead of the ].
Figures. They’re always pretty straightforward. But picky too!
Thanks, nunyer. :D
Pendant,
You definetly got the “wade through” part right on WordPress, and many questions by users and designers are never answered. It’s a nifty program, as long as you know exactly what you’re doing. :)
Global Climate Change is here. It’s been happening for many years. It doesn’t take a scientiest to see it. No matter what the cause–nature or man or both–we must be acutely aware of it and make plans as to what we will do as the climate changes begin to affect us more and more. Does anyone–other than the gassy “george” above–disagree with that?
nunyer,
My guess is the indented comment is so small because the style sheet used with this blog is set to show it as a percentage of the font size that’s being used for regular comments. But that’s just a guess. php can be a nightmare or a dream.
What do we lose if we address global warming proactively?
Our unconscionable WASTE of energy?
Our dependence on oil and the cost to maintain it?
Boo freakin’ hoo.
Libs
Upthread, a number of telling arguments:
“Science is not decided by a debate among lay persons”
And, “—pass on the indirect cost through the GUISE of 1st Amendment rights”
I paraphrased, and I did not attribute. Just go upthread and you will find what I mean.
Liberals, it is clear that you think America should have a “ruling class” — some sort of “scientific aristocracy”.
America will reject that notion, you know that, so you don’t state it openly, can you?
—–
There is huge financial bias among the scientists who support man made global warming theory.
There are huge differences between the projections and calculations of the various scientist, and various studies, supporting man made global warming theory.
Very, very few of the people who attack the “skeptics” are scientists, themselves.
Most of the people who attack the “skeptics” are highly political journalists or political activists, not scientists.
If you read the actual work of the man made global warming scientists, they leave themselves an awful lot of wiggle-room. Everything is qualified. The “range” of predicted results is huge.
——
By the way, the AFL-CIO supports the Holcomb coal fired plant. Yes, they do see their own financial security threatened.
Industrial Unions will desert the Democrat Party, over this issue!
Why should America do anything, by government mandate, when China and India and much of the world will do nothing at all?
No, we are not “Nero fiddling while Rome burns” as you liberals try to brand rational thought on this issue.
Instead, you GW liberals are “King Canute” — you liberals think that your position on the issues makes you “royal” and omnipotent.
You think that YOU can dismiss those who disagree.
You think that Democratic principles must be discarded, since this is a “crisis” that requires your special skills.
You think that YOU have the power to “hold back the tide”. You think that you can change a natural event.
Perhaps you can make a very, very miniscule dent, if America were the ONLY country in the world. We are not. If we use less carbon, the rest of the world will use more, the international price of carbon will drop, meaning the 3rd world will be able to aford, and USE more carbon. Hence, NO NET CHANGE in carbon use, if the United States acts alone.
This is music to the liberal ears, however. This justifies turning over our sovereignty to the United Nations, does it not?
However, if we let international treaties govern production, if we truly believe those treaties are necessary for human survival itself —
Will we go to war to defend and enforce those international treaties?
If we won’t go to war over a treaty obligation, the treaty is worthless, is it not?
International agreement, on the use of carbon is a pipe dream.
International controls on the use of carbon can not happen without tyranical government enforcing those rules.
This will, of course, cause huge political backlashes, world wide.
Why should the poor countries be denied the energy for the refrigeration of food and medicine, as we have enjoyed?
Why should the American Auto Worker or the American Coal Miner loose his or her job, over GW hysteria, while Al Gore burns more carbon than 99% of the other people, on the planet?
The purpose of the GW extremists is to HURT America.
IF you really wanted to “reduce our dependence on foreign energy” — then we would be using more clean coal technology.
The AFL-CIO understands that the “greens” will cost the United States in manufacturing and industrial jobs. That is why industrial unions are beginning to question man-made global warming theory.
We skeptics think you libs are “King Canute” ordering back the tide.
This is a natural event. Humans have little do with it.
Even if we did cause it, the cost of “stopping” mans contribution to global warming would be famine, starvation and economic chaos.
GW extremists want us to make real, deadly sacrifices today, in order to empower government and themselves, based on a projected, hypothetical benefit, way off in the future.
Also, I think the King Canute label fits you greens, because you feel “royal” in your outlook.
The Aristocracy of Global Warming Scientists, according to liberal comments upthread, should be able to avoid the tedious debates among us peasants.
A shot, upthread, was taken by the libs against the First Amendment.
A shot, upthread, was also taken against majority opinion in the political arena.
You GW Aristocrats do not want a debate. You want power! (And your political power comes from denying America the carbon based power that we need to survive.)
By the way, ever notice how those scientists who believe in man made global warming do not agree with each other, on future projections or percentages of causation?
Ever notice that the true scientists RARELY attack other scientists, on the GW issue?
It is the politically biased journalists and political activists who attack the skeptics.
There is no viable alternative to oil, over the next several decades.
Here, you liberals look like the Alchemists, of the dark ages, trying to turn lead into gold.
Alternatives are fine. Alternatives will be produced for economic reasons, by the free market.
However, stop telling us that you want to reduce the power of OPEC.
Coal and drilling in ANWR would reduce the power of OPEC. That is NOT what you want.
You want to hurt America, not help us.
econ101,
Seems it’s not the “liberals” who are living in the Dark Ages, but the “conservatives” who are afraid of progression into the Light-from-Wind-and-Other-Alternatives Age. But just let it happen and watch the major oil companies start buying out the independents as soon as money can be made in alternative. We’ll be right back to square one, but at least we won’t run out of wind. Politicians will continue to supply plenty of it, mostly hot.
Drilling in ANWR will have no effect in the conservation of energy in the U.S. What it will have an effect on is the pocketbooks of the oil companies as they sell said oil to China.
“drilling in ANWR would reduce the power of OPEC”
Three percent – drilling in ANWR would only reduce our dependency on foreign oil by a lousy three percent.
Drive the speed limit – coast up to red lights – accelerate smoothly………
Those changes alone would give us a greater reduction in the use of foreign oil than would drilling in ANWR.
RD
Demand is global.
Supply is global.
Every barrel of oil produced will meet world demand.
Every barrel of oil, from ANWR will reduce demand for OPEC oil, which will help to reduce the power of OPEC to control prices.
Also, ANWR will generate hundreds of thousands of jobs and $Billions in tax revenue.
Should we stop growing wheat, in Kansas? Much of our Kansas agricultural production is exported.
Should we stop building airplanes, in Kansas? A large portion of our aircraft production is exported overseas.
Your argument does not hold up.
Also, I am talking about gasoline and you bring up wind power?
How does wind power an automobile?
Yeah, keep your car in good tune, regularly change the oil, monitor the air pressure in your tires, plan you trips to minimize travel………
Walk or ride a bicycle once in a while…….
Recycle plastic pop bottles and grocery story bags….
Wear warmer clothes indoors and turn the thermostat down………
Spend an hour a year making sure that your home is leak-free………..
Easy………….
WS
You claim to understand unit costs of production, in manufacturing anyway.
Supply and demand DO dictate price.
However, a 1% change, in that balance, will have a DRAMATIC effect on price.
Prices are determined at the margins.
We should conserve AND produce more domestic oil.
We should look for alternatives AND use our domestic coal and oil.
What the Hell are you talking about, Rossell?
econ101, you said
Guess I missed that one. Would you care to point it out to me?
What was said was that science isn’t democratic. Hell, if I could vote on it, I’d vote for locally limited gravitational pull – and eliminate the need for bras.
Ain’t it a b1+ch when reality won’t conform to your wishes?
For those that may have missed it the first time around……
“Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.”
March 16, 2004.
“But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.”
That reduction amounts to less than three percent.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
“That reduction amounts to less than three percent.”
Ah, bad day at the keyboard……….
S/B
That reduction amounts to slightly more than three percent.
Let’s see 70 minus 66.67………. carry the 3, yada, yada………….. 3.33%.
That’s better……………..
nunyer,
Try this link: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
Pay attention to this passage under ‘Who We Are’:
The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals
The IPCC is a part of the U.N.
“The IPCC is a part of the U.N.”
So are we – in fact we developed the UN after WW II and have a permanent seat on the Security Council with full veto power over any resolution.
WS
Prices and costs and decisions are often dictated “at the margins” — that you ask what I am talking about simply shows that you were a manager, and not an executive.
In your working life, you provided the numbers that the executives used to make policy. A valuable skill, but a management skill, not an executive skill.
The “last barrel” on the spot market, is listed as the “closing price” for the day.
A very, very small increase or decrease in supply or demand determines the spot price, on a daily basis.
If oil were at $100.00 a barrel, today, and Monday, demand outstripped supply, by 1%, would the price go up by only 1%?
NO, the price would go through the roof! Prices, again are set at the margins. Very, very small fluctuations in supply or demand can have dramatic impacts on world prices, several degreess higher, in percentage terms, than the actual fluctuation.
By the way, your opposition to all those blue collar oil production jobs, in ANWR, only proves that you care NOTHING about American workers.
Your objection to the US Treasury receiving $Billions in tax revenue from ANWR proves you care nothing about the budget deficit.
Your objection to adding to the world oil producton proves you care nothing about reducing the power of OPEC.
The primary purpose of the Global Warming pushers is to hurt the United States.
“Prices and costs and decisions are often dictated “at the margins” — that you ask what I am talking about simply shows that you were a manager, and not an executive.”
Costs are not “dictated” they are built for ground up calculations – starting with a Master Schedule – one that I wrote.
And your diss that I was a “manager” not an executive is just more bullshit – in my last incarnations I “managed” six departments.
You are just an insurance salesman, Rossell, I worked for 35 years in manufacturing management and you are so presumptuous to tell me how manufacturing operates.
If prices and costs were “dictated” Upper Management would just DICTATE massive profits.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh……………
What a freakin’ moron.
“By the way, your opposition to all those blue collar oil production jobs, in ANWR, only proves that you care NOTHING about American workers.
Your objection to the US Treasury receiving $Billions in tax revenue from ANWR proves you care nothing about the budget deficit.”
Conclusions without foundations, Rossell, typical Rush O’Hannity type bullshit.
Grow a brain, Rossell, you’re BORING me.
The “every 1,500 years” in Avery and Singer’s book are Dansgaard-Oeschger events.
Dansgaard-Oeschger events are not global warming.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unstoppable-hot-air/
Past D-O events do not refute the warming now caused by humans.
Dr. Hans Oeschger (the “O” in D-O) is not a GW “skeptic”
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12
“The time lost now is crucial for attempts to limit the anthropogenic climatic change to a range with more absorbable negative consequences.”
Past solar and temperature correlations do not refute the warming now caused by humans. The current warming can only be explained with both natural and anthropogenic factors.
More debunking at,
‘Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
Thanks for the link, ProudMan. Here’s what was at the link:
“The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
* The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
* The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
* The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals”
So yes, hundreds of scientists were involved in writing up the IPCC report.
But, let’s take a little deeper look. Here is a list of the authors of the synthesis report – the summary.
And here is a list of those members of working group 1, those who put together “The Physical Science Basis Report.”
Please, among the authors of those two documents, show us who is not a scientist, and compare the number of scientists to non-scientists.
Until you do that, your statement the IPCC is
remains unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
Hey, ProudMan, everyone goofs, and maybe you relied on what you thought was a reliable source for your statement. All you need to do is to back up your statement with evidence.
Please, go through and see for yourself how many of those authors are scientists and how many are “statist bureaucrats.”
Econ, you are now spamming the board.
It is very clear that your reasons for opposing the IPCC Report are entirely political. They are also laughable.
Econ’s argument goes something like this:
Premise 1: Global warming “alarmists” say global warming is happening.
Premise 2: Global warming “alarmists” say global warming is caused by human activity.
Premise 3: Acceptance of premise 1 and especially 2 results in unacceptable economic sacrifices. Those who accept premise 1 and 2 want to HURT America.
Conclusion: Given premise 3, premise 2 must be false.
Anyone who actually thinks logically would instantly realize that Premise 3 and the Conclusion do not follow from Premises 1 and 2. Indeed, the conclusion does not follow even if premise 3 were to be true (and it is not).
I mean, who is really the alarmist here?
Oops, bad link. Should read
(dammit, why can’t we preview?)
ProudMan posted January 27, 2008 at 8:16 am
“Someone needs to tell Randy that the IPCC is a governmental political body. It is not a group of scientists out to ’save the world’. It’s just another group of statist bureaucrats out to take more control.”
Proudman,
Go to this site,
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Download all of the reports. Read the names and organizations of the contributors (600+) listed in the annex.
Read all of the chapters, and the scientific “References” at the ends.
Then tell us what is “political” in it.
nice find, cosmos
This link at that page is especially good. The authors and their credentials are listed starting on p. 15.
ProudMan, this link should make it easier for you to weed out the non-scientists in the group.
Proudman said:
My response:
Proudman’s response to nunyer’s challenge:
Try this link: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
Pay attention to this passage under ‘Who We Are’:
The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals
The IPCC is a part of the U.N.
I consider this a confirmation of the hypothesis I advanced.
Proudman, a body being formed under the aegis of the UN reveals nothing about who these people are. Believe it or not, the UN has formed a number of committees and agencies that look at scientific issues for advisory purposes, and that recruit scientists to review evidence. UN affiliation does not automatically equal “must be staffed with bureaucrats”.
Like I said, reflexively shallow analysis resulting from “seeing the UN and running from there”.
Info on Avery and Singer,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer
And for Paul the Con……………….
Titles are thrown around like confetti – the title does not necessarily indicate status.
At my last incarnation, my title was “Manager” but I reported to the Executive Vice President.
At another stop, I was also a manager, but reported to the President of the company.
At another, I was a Director, reporting to the Executive VP of the Division.
Titles are just words that do not necessarily correspond to the level of responsibility or authority.
At my last incarnation as a “Manager” virtually nothing happened in the operation without my approval.
So, Rossell, just HOW much experience do you actually have in the manufacturing arena?
“The only different today is what part is man playing in it? CO2 is a natural element in nature and is trapped within a icy layer that during warming is melted and released. Along with Hydrogen which if it builds up to a toxic level will not just make it hard to breath but can cause an eruption of a fiery furnace effect.
Posted by Writerdog at 8:12 am”
Good post Writerdog but I hope you do not mind me adding a correction to it, it is “methane gas” from decaying matter that is trapped within the icy layers along with the CO2 and that methane is ten times worst.
When it comes to “Hydrogen” think H2O (water).
econ101
Posted January 27, 2008 at 12:37 pm:
True, if we’re talking about perfect competition for any commodity other than oil. In that case, we just might see a DRAMATIC one-day price.
But we’re not talking about widgets here, we’re talking about oil.
Since 1973 oil supply stocks are determined by OPEC. Given that since 1973 OPEC’s supply curve for oil has been backward bending (at the margin :wink:), and given that the demand schedule for oil — gasoline included — “has negative slope” then doesn’t it follow that the reason OPEC determines supply outside the market is because its members wish to maximize the revenue to be earned by their remaining stocks?
Of course it does. This has been OPEC’s game for more than 3 decades now, to pull their peoples into the developed world — and keep them there — by manipulating both their published known reserves as well as the actual amount of oil they release to the market.
Given your track record here at WEblog (you’re nothing if not consistently wrong), I say prove it. Sketch out a real world example under which, given say an 85 million one-day trading volume at $100/bbl, if supply were cut to 84.15 million barrels, price “skyrockets” upward. Let’s examine the behavior of price here.
You don’t have to show your work, :lol: , but please DO factor in the options-trade effect on its underlying commodity.
Or continue to bloviate while accusing others of being “aristocratic.”
Well?
Remember that the EIA is oil-friendly, and look at the graphs here,
‘Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/results.html
At best, ignoring production costs, etc, it barely replaces other declining domestic sources. Status quo.
Demand (and imports) continue to rise.
700,000+ barrels a day are now coming from Alaska. With luck, high oil prices, etc., the same amount might come from there 30 years from now.
Jobs? Workers in the declining Prudhoe region instead work in the Refuge.
Will the old, indefensible pipeline last? Will it require expensive new foundations, as Alaska warms, and the permafrost thaws?
And OPEC wants us to drill more.
They control the market, and make high profits while selling less of their oil. We deplete our oil, and become more dependent on OPEC’s.
cosmos
Posted January 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm
BINGO
That is exactly correct.
We as a nation should be doing everything in our power to get out of this game, because it’s RIGGED against us. Unless you’re Exxon, of course.
It appears that sea ice in the Antarctic is at an all time high, since the first record of 1979.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
Arctic ice has rapidly recovered to nearly normal levels. More ice this year then last.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
It appears that sea ice in the Antarctic is at an all time high, since the first record of 1979. God knows what sea ice extant looked like before 1979.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm
January 7th, 2008
As of January 1, 2008 Environment Canada analysis indicates sea ice cover over the Northern Hemisphere has recovered to near normal extent. However, much of the thick multi-year ice in the eastern and even central Arctic Ocean has been depleted and replaced with thinner more newly formed first year ice.
Heartland also gave copies of the book to Iowa legislators.
‘Heartland Institute Ensures Bad Book Has Great “Sales” ‘
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-ensures-bad-book-has-great-sales
My God, look at the snow extent in the US:
http://www.socc.ca/snow/snow_current_e.cfm#northamerica
My God, look at the snow extent in the US:
http://www.socc.ca/snow/snow_current_e.cfm#northamerica
It’s an arctic invasion!
Here is a link to more links, linking to global warming link, links:
http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html
Max posted January 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm
“It appears that sea ice in the Antarctic is at an all time high, since the first record of 1979. God knows what sea ice extant looked like before 1979.”
Don’t ask God — The HadISST data set has it.
The ice has grown an INSIGNIFICANT amount, after a much larger amount melted before satellite monitoring began.
The graphs say it best,
‘Sea Ice, North and South, Then and Now’
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/sea-ice-north-and-south-then-and-now/
“Perhaps you can see why I’m not impressed with the SH record maximum this year, but I’m very concerned about this year’s record NH minimum.“
“Perhaps you can see why I’m not impressed with the SH record maximum this year, but I’m very concerned about this year’s record NH minimum.“
Yes, because weather, when it supports a global warming theory becomes evidence of such.
Weather, when it does not support a global warming theory becomes simply weather.
Did Max look at this graph?
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/shwwzmu.JPG
‘The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’
Naomi Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686
‘The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion’
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
Cosmos, Max has his mind made up… Dont confuse him with facts!! ROFL
Wrong graph… look at this one Max,
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/shfin.JPG
Chas,
Yeah, Max is funny! I explained to him a few days ago that the new, thin Arctic ice will melt faster than thick multi-year ice.
But he doesn’t understand the significance, and keeps posting this…
Max posted January 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“However, much of the thick multi-year ice in the eastern and even central Arctic Ocean has been depleted and replaced with thinner more newly formed first year ice.“
The Carbon Tax is in the mail. It just happend to our neighbor to the North – Canada. This scares the methane gas right out of me. Now this area in Canada. Tomorrow the world to save it self. When do you think this craziness will stop? Carbon Tax is a bunch of BS. Here’s the link. I just can’t wait for the Wichita Eagle to promote this. It part of the glory of global warming right in our pocket book time and time again. Do you think our prissy governor is on board for this? I would say of course.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5a0e128d-c60a-4f31-a5b4-4dabd49c5bf2&k=68845
WS
Forgive me for trying to help you understand.
That you still do not understand simply makes me question your “internet” resume. I guess you can claim to be an “expert” at anything, on line. I recall you also claimed to be an “expert” on sexual harassament HR issues. Funny that you would be an HR expert AND a production management expert, but, you are free to claim anything here.
I remind you that your defense of Bill Clinton was that his sex, with subordinates, was “consensual” — any attorneys, reading your explanation, would tell you that consent is not relevent. It is quid pro quo sexual harassment if the subordinate says it was, period, as far as the courts treat these things. Anyway, I am not really off topic, I am just telling you that your “jack of all trades” tirades are wearing thin. Yes, you have a right to your opinion, but please stop acting like you are any kind of an authority.
You often dont know what the hell you are talking about.
When discussing the economic facts, on another thread, I said that the stock market, according to Samuelson, “predicted 9 out of the last 5 recessions” — my point being that the stock market was a “leading indicator” but not a “perfect” indicator. It is an indicator due to the fact that the stock market price is based on the market’s prediction of future profits. When the price of the stock declines, the market is predicting lower prices. I condensed this down, to an abreviated: “When profits decrease production decreases” and that, if several different firms decrease production, GDP would also decrease. In other words, a recession IS, by definition, a decreases in corporate profits.
This, above, is MACRO economics. You then focused on unit labor costs and other MICRO economic issues, related to production in a particular industry. I do not deny that the unit labor cost can go up or down, and the unit profit margin can go up or down, on any product, without directly impacting production decisions, that was not my point. Yes, that can happen, that is all well and good. Unit costs and all of that are important issues. However, the INVESTMENT world holds everyone, manufacturers and fuel producers and utilities, to the same standards:
Stock prices are set based on a prediction of future profits, period.
Now, in the other thread, you attacked me for being, only, an “insurance agent” — a rather snooty, rather condesending put down. Something you do frequently, of course, when you cant argue based on the facts. The truth is, their are lots of CPA’s, Lawyers and Stockbrokers who are also insurance agents. You are a pedantic snob.
Anyway, when discussing how ENERGY is priced, I tried to refer you back to the point that we were talking about manufacturing, previously.
My attempt was to compare and contrast your micro-economic knowledge, related to one, isolated, assembly line system and unit cost issues, to the Macro economic energy price issue. I need to remember to “show my work” and explain every step with you, as you seem to not be able to make jumps from your manager mode very well, into Macro Economic thinking.
It is illegal for you, WS, to advise anyone on the advisabilty of investing in any particular company or industry. I am legally qualified to make those recommendatons based on market issues, quarterly profit estimates and industry trends.
It is not illegal for ME to do so. (Though I never do so on this Blog.)
Who, therefore, is LEGALLY qualified?
Not you.
—–
My apologies to the other Bloggers. I do not like how petty this Blog becomes, at times.
However, what to do, when such a pedantic snob trys to claim “expertise” on every single issue?
That wouldnt be so bad, but WS seems to want to, somehow, dismiss everyone else who disagrees, because WS, and ONLY WS is the WEBLOG “expert” in all things.
nunyer and cosmos,
I will not apologize for calling the head of your religion a bunch of statists. If you cannot understand that the U.N. is a political organization and any part of it is political don’t ask me to help you understand.
But by all means go back into that place where everything is known. That special place where there is no discussion. I often wonder what people like you are doing on a blog if you can’t stand to have someone who disagrees near you.
Yeah, Max is funny! I explained to him a few days ago that the new, thin Arctic ice will melt faster than thick multi-year ice.
But he doesn’t understand the significance, and keeps posting this…Cosmos
———————————-
Cosmos, you missed my reply, and you can’t put words into my mouth. See below for the real McCoy:
————————————————
cosmos
Posted January 26, 2008 at 12:54 am | Permalink
I’ve added “bold”, in case Max has reading problems.
Max posted January 26, 2008 at 12:14 am
“However, much of the thick multi-year ice in the eastern and even central Arctic Ocean has been depleted and replaced with thinner more newly formed first year ice.”
Max, three very simple, obvious questions:
1) Max, which melts faster — thick, or thin ice? Max can do that simple experiment in the comfort of his heated home.
2) Max, when the “thinner more newly formed first year ice” melts, the Arctic ocean will warm faster. What happens after that, this year?
3) Max, what happens to the ice in 2009, 2010, 2011, …?
———————————————
Max
Posted January 26, 2008 at 1:00 am | Permalink
Good Cosmos, you can read.
1. Duh Cosmos, who said anything different?
2 & 3. Cosmos, only you and Al Gore seem to know what happens next.
Yeah, Max is funny! I explained to him a few days ago that the new, thin Arctic ice will melt faster than thick multi-year ice.
But he doesn’t understand the significance, and keeps posting this…Cosmos
———————————-
Cosmos, you missed my reply, and you are not bright enough to put words into my mouth. See below for the real McCoy:
————————————————
cosmos
Posted January 26, 2008 at 12:54 am | Permalink
I’ve added “bold”, in case Max has reading problems.
Max posted January 26, 2008 at 12:14 am
“However, much of the thick multi-year ice in the eastern and even central Arctic Ocean has been depleted and replaced with thinner more newly formed first year ice.”
Max, three very simple, obvious questions:
1) Max, which melts faster — thick, or thin ice? Max can do that simple experiment in the comfort of his heated home.
2) Max, when the “thinner more newly formed first year ice” melts, the Arctic ocean will warm faster. What happens after that, this year?
3) Max, what happens to the ice in 2009, 2010, 2011, …?
———————————————
Max
Posted January 26, 2008 at 1:00 am | Permalink
Good Cosmos, you can read.
1. Duh Cosmos, who said anything different?
2 & 3. Cosmos, only you and Al Gore seem to know what happens next.
Chas, you figure out the definition of surrender yet?
“Forgive me for trying to help you understand.”
Feel free to kiss my ass, Rossell.
“It is illegal for you, WS, to advise anyone on the advisabilty of investing in any particular company or industry.”
As usual, Rossell, you are trying to attribute staements to me that I did not make. I never even came close to recommending ANY investment to ANYONE.
As I have said before, stop doing this, it is stupid, childish and makes you look like a complete fool.
“Anyway, when discussing how ENERGY is priced,”
I never discussed energy pricing, I only commented on the amount of oil in ANWR – with a reference – unlike most of your crap.
“to one, isolated, assembly line system and unit cost issues”
My experience is with many types of manufacturing operations, including assembly, injection molding,
extrusions, printing, clothing, casting, machining, stamping, forging and painting.
“I am legally qualified”
That doesn’t mean that you understand the manufacturing processes, only that you know how to read a P & L statement – I know the details of what is behind the statement.
“ONLY WS is the WEBLOG “expert” in all things.”
I never claimed that, in any matter, but I do know manufacturing, unlike you.
As usual, Rossell, you have made an ass of yourself on this topic, dismissing my education and experience merely because I don’t buy your pathetic right wing arguments.
“I do not like how petty this Blog becomes, at times.”
The pettiness comes from your feeble attempts to discount the experience of others while claiming expertise for yourself.
You suck, Rossell, but we all knew that – they don’t call you Paul the Con for nothing.
Loser.
And for Christ’s sake, Rossell, get a Spell Check program – you are embarrassing.
Max,
I replied to your 1:00 am reply,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/01/open-thread-125/#comment-282286
And you’re “funny” Max, because you don’t seem to understand that the thickness of the ice is as important as the area.
You make a big deal about the area of ice, but also include that it could rapidly melt away again.
ProudMan: “I will not apologize for calling the head of your religion a bunch of statists. If you cannot understand that the U.N. is a political organization and any part of it is political don’t ask me to help you understand.’
That is in no way an intelligent defense of your claim. Political organization does not equal staffed with bureaucrats (which was your original claim). As for your “statist” claim, thank you for revealing that your objections have nothing to do with science or natural reality, it’s political.
You can’t argue the science, so you see UN and that activates the right wing Turing Machine about statist one world orderers trying to push us around! Like I said, shallow and reflexive.
Don’t get all huffy because you can’t overcome the shortcomings of your own position.
“I need to remember to “show my work” and explain every step with you,”
I hope you read P & L statements better than you read on the Blog, Rossel, because I never made any comment about “showing your mothafaq’ing work,” dumbass.
Try again, loser.
Christ, I hope anyone that reads this blog has seen your lack of comprehension, Rossell, and decides to invest somewhere else – you obviously need a bit of help with the ability to respond to direct commentary.
“Yes, because weather, when it supports a global warming theory becomes evidence of such.
“Weather, when it does not support a global warming theory becomes simply weather.”
Strawman. Particularly since your opposition (I’ve checked) has not been using weather to argue the point on global warming). You are arguing with a right wing spin machine construct where global warming “alarmists” have been arguing about the weather. Some people have been doing that (e.g., the linkage between Hurricane Katrina and global warming), but those people are wrong, and the person you are having a discussion with (cosmos) has not been making that mistake.
BTW, your recounting of your conversation with cosmos? It doesn’t reflect well on you, Max. Your rejoinder about “Cosmos, only you and Al Gore seem to know what happens next”? Simply sad.
econ101
Posted January 27, 2008 at 12:37 pm:
—
Pedant
Posted January 27, 2008 at 1:39 pm:
—
Hey econ101, you’re not dodging my challenge, are you? :D
Surely you wouldn’t foist all your microeconomic psychobabble on us, insisting we’re wrong about the impact of supply shocks on oil prices but you’re right, all with no proof would you?!?
You would NEVER do that, right?
Also, I find all this attempted condescension directed toward WSClark a bit unseemly and frankly, ahem, aristocratic of you. Know what I mean?
:lol:
Big Deal?
Who made a Big Deal out of ice Cosmos.
You posted those web sites months ago!
ProudMan posted January 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“But by all means go back into that place where everything is known. That special place where there is no discussion.”
ProudMan obviously is not aware of the huge amount of “discussion” involved in the peer-reviewed science reported by the IPCC.
And ironically, he prefers to believe non-peer-reviewed, nonscience (aka nonsense) — such as Avery and Singer’s book, which had little or no “discussion”.
I wish I understood why so many Americans are so hostile toward science. The global warming “deniers” share many features of the Creationist “anti-evolution” crowd, namely, that science and scientists constitute a vast conspiracy against religion and against America. For starters, there is no way that science (i.e., scientists and the “institution” of science) could mount such a conspiracy – and there is no reason why they would. Do all you anti-science folks out there really believe that there exists some cabal of scientists meeting in dark, smoky places making back-room deals to bring down religion and the “American Way?” Hyperbole aside, such a notion is preposterous, for several reasons: one, given the sheer numbers of working scientists in the world, it would be impossible to mount such a conspiracy; two, scientists are far too competitive to ever agree to any kind of conspiracy; three, what do working, academic scientists have to gain from such a conspiracy? Money? The scientists who stand to gain from the global warming debate are the ones with ties to oil companies and conservative “think” tanks, to which, as it turns out, the global-warming deniers are almost always linked. There is no conspiracy. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of the science shows that global warming is happening and that man is either causing or exacerbating it. If 10,000 experiments show that a rock falls to the ground when dropped from a height and 2 experiments show that it doesn’t, which data set is more reliable? Of course the climate data is much more complicated, but the process is the same. Moreover, why is it that so many (econ101) resort to the “anti-American” argument when they don’t like someone else’s position? Aside from the gross logical fallacy, it is patently untrue. Arguing that, for example, drilling for oil in ANWR is not a good solution does NOT make someone anti-American. Trying to suppress dissent by questioning someone’s patriotism is.
I’m not refferring to discussion held by someone else cosmos. It’s the way some bloggers, such as yourself, don’t discuss.
The more scientifically advanced, the more antagonistic the deniers will become. I think at the root of it is, ‘ should man cast his hopes’ with the scientific/technological advances or with a deepening of faith.
first line should be …advanced we become…
Max asks:
“Max Posted January 27, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
Chas, you figure out the definition of surrender yet?”
========================
Max, I posted the definition for you two days ago… Did you miss it??
ProudMan,
We had a “discussion”. You made a false claim about the IPCC. You were shown why it was false — the U.N. does not do the climate science. Then you quit.
ksagnostic,
Is the IPCC full of statist bureaucrats? Of course. The IPCC itself is a bureaucracy. Scientists don’t need it to get published or to do their research. So why does it exist? It has goals of control, via governments, various things they claim affect climate change. Those in favor of government control are generally known as statists.
from ProudMan:
Sorry, my formatting made it appear that ProudMan said some things he didn’t.
Corrected version:
from ProudMan:
ProudMan, how many non-scientists authored the IPCC science reports referenced earlier?
Hey, if you can’t answer the question, no biggie. Seems pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread that you made a claim you couldn’t substantiate.
An ethical person would admit the mistake and learn from it.
nunyer,
I never said they were not scientists.
It is all to common on this blog to assign viewpoints/assertions to opponents and then blast them for not substantiating something they never said.
I believe your ‘ethics’ require you to admit to a mistake.
ProudMan:
You said that scientists weren’t part of the IPCC – your referent for they.
If you look at the link you supplied – http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm – you can see that one of the constituent groups of the IPCC is
Perhaps you overlooked that part.
So you admit that those reports were indeed authored by scientists and not by ’statist bureaucrats? Thank you.
Yes it is, unfortunately . . . like your completely unfounded statement about my ‘religion,’ about which you know absolutely nothing. Ah well. I’d really been hoping to carry on a civil conversation here.
Good on you for admitting that the IPCC report was indeed authored by scientists. If I misinterpreted your statement otherwise – that you meant that the IPCC report was based on bureacrats’lust for power, not scientific data – I apologize.
“There is no viable alternative to oil, over the next several decades.”
Ya know? A statement like that is EXACTLY what I would expect from a shill for fossil fuels.
On its face it is presumptive and conclusive and biased.
I imagine there were those in the horse and tack interests who said much the same thing when the internal combustion engine was discovered.
Of course, paulthecon was being restrained here.
He previously has posted that humanity will be using fossil fuels…get this…FOREVER.
Why do you want to hold your country back paul? Our vehicles and technology ALREADY lag behind the industrial world. Don’t you WANT America to be competetive in the world.
No. Of course you don’t.
Nunyer,
I said the IPCC was not a ‘bunch of scientists out to save the world’. I never said that there were no scientists at the IPCC. That is a distortion used by you, cosmos, and ksagnostic.
Also, I don’t call the formation of things like the IPCC a ‘lust for power’. However it is a mechanism where a small group tries to enforce it’s will upon all of mankind. After all, most evils come out of people doing what they consider ‘good’.
Pedant and nunyer, there is also the
“pre” html command. Where ever you type the words, it should stay where you placed it.
“Is the IPCC full of statist bureaucrats? Of course. The IPCC itself is a bureaucracy. Scientists don’t need it to get published or to do their research. So why does it exist? It has goals of control, via governments, various things they claim affect climate change. Those in favor of government control are generally known as statists.”
Willful ignorance. The IPCC is part of the UN therefore it is full of statist bureaucrats. The IPCC is like other bodies. It is advisory and makes reports. It is the constituant governments of the UN that makes policy.
Like I said, shallow and reflexive.
“I said the IPCC was not a ‘bunch of scientists out to save the world’. I never said that there were no scientists at the IPCC. That is a distortion used by you, cosmos, and ksagnostic.”
You also made the contrasting statment that the IPCC “is a governmental political body” not (as in in “as opposed to”). The implication is clear that the IPCC was not made up of scientists is clear. Furthermore, the IPCC is advisory. The purpose of the IPCC is to review the research on global warming. There was quite a bit of pressure from within the UN (i.e., from representatives of member states) to water down the report.
You don’t know what you are talking about, and you are digging yourself deeper.
Whoa!
randy gave me a thread and I missed it! I’ve been working on a project and enjoying the weather today.
My absence didn’t prevent the usual ad hominum attacks though!
I see there is some discussion about the IPCC authors. It’s hard to find a lot about their credentials. Many of don’t fit the definition of ’scientist’.
You see, it appears that since the IPCC is mainily a political organization PC played a large part in the selection of the authors.
Of over 4000 prospective authors they selected 600. The selection process considered country of origin and gender. The remaining ’scientists’ that didn’t make the cut automatically became ‘reviewers’.
Many of the 600 author’s political credentials are more impressive than their ’scientific’ credentials.
Forget trying to stop Global Warming, it isn’t happening. America isn’t giving up the SUV, the 24 hour drive thru or a big screen in every room. India and China have no desire to curb their industrial expansion, and go for a visit and see how well they take care of their enviornment. Russia is not about to allow anything to keep them from exploiting Europe’s increasing dependence on their gas and oil. Better to spend your time and money preparing for warmer, wetter winters and hotter summers. Invest your bucks in companies that manufacture air conditioners, fans and suntan lotion!
“I see there is some discussion about the IPCC authors. It’s hard to find a lot about their credentials. Many of don’t fit the definition of ’scientist’.
“You see, it appears that since the IPCC is mainily a political organization PC played a large part in the selection of the authors.”
Put up or shut up Hank. I looked at the list and see nothing that indicates “PC” criteria for selection. Furthermore, the report is also a review of literature. Lists generally do not list credentials, but affiliations. However, one can look at the names and run them through a search engine to find credentials.
But again, this is also a review of peer reviewed research. As I have pointed out to you before, this is not simply an issue of dueling experts.
“Forget trying to stop Global Warming, it isn’t happening. America isn’t giving up the SUV, the 24 hour drive thru or a big screen in every room.”
Since the US is the world’s number one customer, our potential effect on the manufacturers of the world is still quite potent. If the United States adopts more restrictive emission standards (while fuel efficiency overlaps with emission controls, they are not exactly the same thing), other countries are more likely to follow suit. Other large markets (particularly some in Eurpoe) are already adopting some restrictions, and some of them can be done pretty quickly and not nearly as painfully as some of the “free marketeer” chicken littles would have you believe.
But in the end, reality is reality. Either humans do have a considerable effect on global climate change and can greatly slow down its progression, or they can’t. Political beliefs are irrelevant to this reality. However, science, done repeatedly and thoroughly, is the most reliable source of information we have, and the evidence is definitely leaning one way.
It should be noted, I think the most urgent crisis facing us is the degredation of the oceans , followed by the loss of the worlds’s tropical rainforests and attendant biodiversity, and the impending water crisis. The situation involving our oceans does not get nearly the publicity and attention that it should.
I thought IPCC were those practical shooters who go thru 500 rounds a day?
Well this is as close as we will come to a newspaper providing ANY other point of view on
GW. Except for their obvious bias, it was almost refreshing.
Say what you will about the IPCC. The reality is that the IPCC is just one body – take them out of the equation altogether and the scientific consensus remains unchanged. And, KenS’s joking (I hope) aside, the effects of global climate change are much more significant than could ever be mitigated by airconditioning and sunscreen, and potentially include greater and more frequent weather disasters, catastrophic impact on farming and crop yields, droughts and flooding and so on. Even if the predictions are overblown, it makes much more sense to err on the side of caution than to try to pretend that there exists a scientific controversy. The notion that there is a scientific controversy is completely manufactured. Besides, there are plenty of good reasons to reduce fossil fuel use and its attendant emissions: fossil-fuel use is simply not sustainable – period. Most of the world’s fossil fuel reserves are located underneath nations that are either overtly hostile to the U.S., or in countries with tenuous allegiances to the U.S. Climate change aside, fossil fuel use still results in a host of nasty pollutants. I like driving my car as much as the next guy, but there has to be a better way. If we continue to rely on fossil fuels, we’re only setting ourselves up for ecological disaster and continuing to endanger our national security. If we could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (we’ll probably never eliminate it) then we could tell Hugo Chavez, the Saudis and a host of other nasty folks to go take a proverbial flying leap.
No matter how many “scientists” try to justify it, a hoax ia a hoax.
“Global Warming” is no more than a blatant attempt to turn the United States into another third world country and try to pin the blame on the Bush Administration in the process.
What do the kool aid drinkers on the left not understand about that?
Yup glockster.
And the Earth is flat too!
J R
No, but it is round by design, not concensus. Seems awfully stupid to go back to the 18th century because a few lefties want to “equalize the playing field”…but that would be beyoud your level of comprehension…
Dear Hank Price,
E. G. Beck is on your “400″ list.
Ben posted this about him,
“Beck – that explains a lot. I have read his stuff – very bogus. Taking samples downwind from power plants etc.”
Zbigniew Jaworowski and Joel M. Kauffman rely on Beck’s “bogus” CO2 claims, and are also on your “400″ list.
Hank Price, please become famous in the climate science field.
1) Explain how Beck’s CO2 claims are possible, and valid. See graph and text here,
‘More Nonsense about CO2′
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
2) Explain why accurate measurements of CO2 in ice cores, and air worldwide do not show Beck’s wild swings. Note the seasonal changes are more noticeable in the northern hemisphere, which has the most vegetation.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
““Global Warming” is no more than a blatant attempt to turn the United States into another third world country”
Oh the forces of corporate greed are well on the road to that destination there “glockster”.
Tell me Curly. Where are we gonna be when the oil runs out?
Shall we just keep waging wars to keep ourselves dependent on it? Or should we maybe evolve ourselves beyond it?
glockster
Posted January 27, 2008 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
No matter how many “scientists” try to justify it, a hoax ia a hoax.
“Global Warming” is no more than a blatant attempt to turn the United States into another third world country and try to pin the blame on the Bush Administration in the process.
What do the kool aid drinkers on the left not understand about that?
WTF?
“Where are we gonna be when the oil runs out?
Shall we just keep waging wars to keep ourselves dependent on it? Or should we maybe evolve ourselves beyond it?”
You evolved from what JR, a tadpole?
There is plenty of oil. If it IS running out, then lets start drilling more from Alaska and our off shore resources.
And yes J R, no matter which political party you love – if the middle east and your buddy in Venzuela cut us off, we WILL go to war.
We have to have it.
glockster posted January 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm
“Seems awfully stupid to go back to the 18th century because a few lefties want to “equalize the playing field”…but that would be beyoud your level of comprehension…”
I didn’t know that the “18th century” had hydrogen fuel cells, PV panels, net metering, LED lighting, advanced passive solar and insulation, carbon fiber, light-weight steel…
And here are glockster’s “a few lefties”. You’ll need more than 10 fingers to count them.
‘The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion’
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
And just go the web and look at what the EU is proposing for energy credits for their countries.
Looks like the big industry countries will have to
layoff workers (think Michigan/think UAW).
The developing (read competition) countries get to grow their carbon releases.
Isn’t this amazing? Thank God it isn’t happening
in America. But when it does, who ya gonna blame?
Yes well “Kristin”
“There is plenty of oil. If it IS running out, then lets start drilling more from Alaska and our off shore resources.”
As is mentioned upthread, unfriendly nations that we need dinosaur fuel from WANT us to use the little we have left. Then they can charge us even more when our own reserves are completely gone.
Then you “Kristin” said,
“We have to have it.”
Oil you mean.
I want to get past it. I say we can.
You say we can’t? Ok. YOU send your kids to fight and die for your right to your ignorance.
Kristin Shepard posted January 27, 2008 at 10:59 pm
“There is plenty of oil. If it IS running out, then lets start drilling more from Alaska and our off shore resources.”
Hello??? OPEC wants us to drill more.
They control the market, and will make high profits while selling less of their oil. We deplete our oil, and become more dependent on OPEC’s.
OPEC does not want us to to do what would greatly cut oil demand, and lower their profits — increase energy efficiency, and switch to alternatives.
My ex-husband blogs all day and doesn’t even bother to work for a living.
He can’t afford to buy health insurance for our son. He can find time to blog all day and all night.
He claims to be a global warming expert and can’t even pay for the heat in his own house.
“No matter how many “scientists” try to justify it, a hoax ia a hoax.
“‘Global Warming’ is no more than a blatant attempt to turn the United States into another third world country and try to pin the blame on the Bush Administration in the process.
“What do the kool aid drinkers on the left not understand about that?”
No need to think when you can be that certain. And clearly, glockster has decided that certainty is preferrable to thinking.
I hope Randys doctor doesn’t consensus science with his next disease.
Consensus science = Junk science
Junk science = Steven Milloy, S. Fred Singer, Dennis T. Avery, E. G. Beck, etc..
I see the Wingnuts are pushing their fantasy claims, in which they get to be right about something, for once. In particular, I see the numbskulled assertion that “scientific consensus isn’t science.”
Given that such Wingnuts aren’t interested in truth but in getting to declare victory so they can look smart before their Wingnut brethren, the following explanation isn’t for them. But I CF2K offers it nonetheless.
*************************************************
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/consensus-science.html
“There is a vein of septicism going around, roughly to the tune of “Science isn’t done by consensus. There is a consensus on global warming. Hence, global warming must be wrong”. Put as baldly as that, the argument is obvious nonsense (note, BTW, that this abandons another of the favourite septic arguments – that there is no consensus on GW. But consistency was never a strong point of the septics).
So, here is my take on it, intended to make the subtle distinctions clear:
There *is* a consensus on global warming (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86).
The consensus is based around the IPCC reports which (by synthesising a vast number of scientific papers) do a fine job of outlining what is and what is not known, and carefully referencing everything back to the original papers.
Scientifically, you cannot argue “There is a consensus: therefore…”. But you *can* argue “The IPCC says such-and-such; therefore…”. Because the IPCC is reporting the science; and if you disagree you can go back to the original papers and find out why.
The argument that “Science isn’t done by consensus” is irrelevant. Its close to true (I suspect that various philosophical strands would argue that the current scientific paradigm does indeed influence what research is done) but its irrelevant. Because no-one is arguing that. Science *is* done by saying: “these papers say such-and-such, therefore…”.
Sometimes, people say “but the best science is done by breaking with consensus”. It certainly true that the most groundbreaking stuff is done this way – just about by definition. But that arguement *can’t* be used to imply that the current consensus is wrong. Its simply a logical fallacy.
The most obvious groundbreaking work in the 20C was relativity and QM. But in both those cases they were *not* sudden shifts from there-is-a-consensus-on-the-old-theory-everything-is-OK to spiffy-new-theory. Instead, there was a slow accumulation of results inconsistent with the old theories, and leading scientists grew more and more unhappy, and various theories were proposed to solve this. That doesn’t fit GW very well – most of the GW septics are grumpy old men, not groundbreaking young scientists.
Did that help?”
8 Trackbacks
hello…
wow…
car claim discount insurance no,…
need….
Jessie…
Great post. I have added you to my digg bookmark…
Online Option Stock Trading is it for you? Some Info You Should Know Before You Take The Plunge….
Online Option Stock Trading is it for you? Some Info You Should Know Before You Take The Plunge….
Jessie…
if youneed help with your coupons go to gr8bargain.com…
Cancer Horoscopes…
) Some individuals or companies have abused the TrackBack feature to insert spam links on some blogs (see sping). Six Apart started…
Horoscopes In Love…
As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against comment spam now exist in many weblog publishing systems….
Things You Can Do Locally To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions…
Can it be that your server is infected with a virus – I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox – Just for your Info….