sudden changes up or down lead to extinctions.
not just ice ages.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Not shame on him, GOOD on him. He actually made a lucid observation with a relevant question.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

CARB isn't regulating CO2 (yet). They are regulating sources of actual pollution.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

In fact, catalytic converters slightly increase co2 output from cars!

=)

If we count co2 as "not emissions" then many cars are already zero emissions, especially in los angeles.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I think we're talking past each other.


CARB doesn't regulate cars. That's DOT. CARB is trying (as of yesterday) to regulate vehicle emissions (cars are not zero emission (not sure where you're getting that from)) by imposing MPG standards for this state. They're getting a beat down from congress (Fed) for it. I have a copy of a letter from a congressional committee to CARB regarding CARB's attempt at this and it's quite entertaining. I'll dig it up and PM it to you if you'd like.

But I digress.

CARB writes the regs and the local agencies (AQMD and APCD) enforce them. Their jurisdiction is over stationary sources (ie gas stations), not mobile sources like cars. As a side note, and this is where the "slippery slope" sets in, they are regulating mobile diesel generators (the type a construction company would tow to a job site) under the argument that they do the emitting while they are stationary. Those things burn dirty as hell.

Anyway, when it comes to the storage of gasoline, there are VOCs and whatnot (benzine) that evaporate into the atmosphere and cause actual damage to animals (and some plants). This is CARB's and the locals reason for being. Change that gasoline to CNG, LPG and Diesel we'll have much cleaner air but CARB and the locals will have to shutter half of their operations.

CO2 has zero to do with this (so far). This is about air pollution.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

there have been a few vehicles whose tailpipe pollutants are actually less than the air they took in (assuming you do not count co2 as a pollutant)

one of the recent Porsche Turbos was one of them.

its all good and well to make fun of CARB, no doubt an imperfect organization, no doubt infiltrated by more than a few moonbats

but they have probably made all of our lungs a lot healthier

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

The regulations they have put in place allow people like me to make our lungs healthier. No doubt about it. Not just our lungs, either. Benzine is some nasty shit. If I'm not killed in some sort of accident first, I will likely die from benzine exposure.

"We breathe the fumes so you don't have to" is our motto.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

No Need to Panic About Global Warming There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
http://online.wsj.com/...171531838421366.html


An article from today's WSJ strikes a tone I lean toward with respect to study and major political action on climate change.

despite being false (for instance, I just tossed the last 11 years into excel and there is the usual warming trend) this takes us full circle doesn't it?

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

No, I don't think so. I'm just explaining what I think is going on. I'm not justifying it.


In general, no. It really depends on the details of the issue and, one's opinion of what he thinks our world should look like.
On many issues, there is a benefit vs. cost trade-off that is subjectively evaluated; conclusions will vary depending upon the views of the individual.

My point is this: I think you can use science to prove that there is climate change, maybe even prove that it is man-made and maybe prove the level of climate change. I do NOT think you can use science to prove what the reaction should be, including whether or not that should involve government action. I think the proposed reaction is an opinion which is outside the realm of scientific proof.

Certainly outside the realm of proof, but what should guide the decision if not data, observation, and logic?

madness? guessing? ideology? religion?

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Certainly outside the realm of proof, but what should guide the decision if not data, observation, and logic?

madness? guessing? ideology? religion?

I think all of those are valid for determining the reaction, especially if government action (or lack thereof) is to be used.
We live in a Democratic society, like it or not. Everyone is entitled to their vote and they can (and will) base such decisions on whatever means they choose.

In my mind this is the crux of what is going on. The people who are denying the "science of change" are doing so to counteract those who believe that existence of change necessitates governmental action. If governmental action was not an necessary conclusion, I believe more of deniers would believe in the science of change.

From what I see, it is irrationality fighting irrationality.

Perhaps we can propose non-government based ways to stop all co2 emissions. =)

Obviously we can't, even a government can't do that.

pretty hopeless really.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

"you used data to question Veganerd's religious belief in AGW"

this is the ironic part. the entire scientific community that is unbought and unpaid by the oil industry, almost without exception, feels that it's you and the other deniers who've got the religious beliefs here.

i found it interesting that rick santorum referred to the global warming hoax last night. imagine that. even many of the deniers have stopped denying, and have reluctantly adopted a new position: yes, there's global warming, yes it's man made, yes it's primarily man made, but [fill in the blank].

the [blank] can be filled with: now it's too late to do anything about it, so, let's not do anything about it; we'll figure out how to fix this later; there are winners and losers and let's just make sure we're a winner; or your argument of paleoclimatology.

and your argument is certainly true. but it's just as true to say that we should get rid of the FDA because there are poisons and carcinogens in nature, so, we can dismiss the accretion of these poisons through human activity.

yes, if a really big volcano were to erupt today, or if a pretty big asteroid was to strike the earth today, three quarters, or one third, for one sixth, of human life could be wiped out, and human life as we know it would be really different and really shitty. does this give us permission to change the entire nature of the earth, and effect this result, on our own? if you follow paleoclimatology back far enough in time, you'll arrive at that moment when anything above very basic forms of life was precluded by atmospheric conditions. is this the metric for you? that it's okay for us to manually remake the earth's climate as long as it can be demonstrated that at some point in prehistory that climate existed?

this is what i wrote about further up in this thread. i don't know you, but i guarantee that you're a conservative. this is the crazy thing about the american zeitgeist today. your religion is your political platform, just as it is with rick santorum. his religion informs his politics which, when aggregated with the other disparate groups that make up the republican constituency, feeds back into his religion. you've got this internal circle jerk going on in your head, and the reason you're a climate change denier is because your religion, politics and science all must parallel the views of the clan for you to survive.

this is why ron paul is such a problem for republicans: not that his ideas are necessarily right or wrong, but that they're so stridently not part of the religious/political/cultural orthodoxy that knits these strange groups together into a political construct. if ron paul actually succeeds in getting republicans to understand that true conservatism includes a right to privacy, an end to the drug war, and a posture of military nonintervention, this blows up the whole coalition. you lose the religious right. you lose the neocons. then you lose your fighting chance at a majority. so, you have to keep pressing the religious right to be pro gun (not in the bible), pro business (not in the bible), pro war (not in the bible), anti-immigrant (not in the bible), anti-conservationism (not in the bible). but this is no problem, because the political wing of the evangelical movement today is not interested in the bible. their religion is republican orthodoxy. and that's probably why you believe the way you do about global warming: because it's part of a platform of things you must believe in to support the clan.

it's no different with liberals. it just seems to me that conclusions and repercussions that flow from this clan disease is a lot more nonsensical - and dangerous - on the republican side.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

There is simply no excuse for a post this obtuse.

It's 6 o'clock in the morning and someone just set your house on fire. The evidence is a) the temperature is rising faster than it ever has before and b) there is all kinds of other evidence in the house showing that the fire is causing the house to warm up.

You just presented a graph showing that the house warms and cools repeatedly when the sun comes up and goes down. Genius!

Quote:

Where exactly is that global warming in this longer look at climatology?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I predicted exactly this progression years ago.

   did you read the article, I mean past the part that you first mentally cried foul on?

Thats not what I see at all.

Using your analogy:

I see a graph that tells me not to get freaked out and assume that my house is on fire simply because the temp inside is rising.

Climate change advocates would be in panic mode because the tempature is rising and assume it must be a fire (past evidence of temp rising be damned). When in fact, the house temp tends to warm nearly everyday as the sun comes up, some days less or more than others.

I dont know know much about "climate change" but there are fact distorting people on both sides. I honestly cant wrap my head around what you were trying to say or saying you saw in that graph.

And so this is really part of the human condition, isn't it?

We use generalizations, philosphies, religions, world views, etc, to guide us, especially in cases where our knowledge and understanding is lacking. We realize it's best is to use these generalizations, etc., as guidlines and to alter from them when the specifics warrant it. But if we change too often or too soon, we start this "slipery slope" and fear that our convictions will disappear and we will become "rudderless."

I am reminded of the exercise mantra "listen to your body." Because if if your legs are tired and you continue to push yourself, you could damage yourself physically or at least get no benefit from it. On the other hand, if you never push yourself into the uncomfortable zone, you fear you'll end up on the couch eating bon-bons.

I sincerely doubt other animals face these types of internal struggles. Human condition, is what I say.

yes, there were about 4 other standard, misleading talking points.

then it pretended to be pro science at the end.

=)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

You have been led to believe that climate scientists are asking you to panic ONLY because it is getting warmer the last 100 years.

But that is not true, not even remotely.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

"And so this is really part of the human condition, isn't it?"

yes. but the best among us can rise above clan irrationalities. should we escape we then return, reach down, and extend a hand to others, and help them up. the human condition begets war, slavery, cruelty, disloyalty, and all sorts of choices driven by profit, convenience or laziness.

that doesn't mean we have to accept it. if you go to the louvre, you'll find among other things a black obelisk containing hammurabi's code. this babylonian king had written down our first recorded set of laws, 4000 years ago. that was the beginning of law and the encoding of civil society. the point of civilization is to rise above the human condition.

you're met with a choice every day: let the clan do my thinking for me; or think for myself. if you do the latter, the blowback you'll get will be from your clan. that should tell you all you need to know.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Incorrect. I was responding to BarryP's analogy.

I've been led to believe that climate scientists are asking me to panic because of not "only because it is getting warmer in the last 100 years"

I've been asked to panic because of the rate of change, the ice caps, glacial retreat, the coral reefs, and the extreme weather events. I've been asked to panic because of polar bears and penguins, because of sharks and the ever increasingly acidic ocean that they live in. I've been asked to panic because of ice sheets in greenland and too many warm days.

and maybe I should panic.

but I'm not panicing because of that analogy/graph, because it showed me NOTHING even remotely in support of your position.

Yeah, I saw the divide, but I agree with a fair amount of the second part, as one way of intelligently moving forward. Realized after posting that this thread was more about a funny graph that pro-AGW types could use as a cudgel against their "enemies", so the article's points are out of place. Carry on.

Issues of this nature almost always require governmental action because the problem affects the society as a whole; in fact it goes beyond our national boundaries impacting every country on earth.

This makes the issue even more threatening to those you describe as deniers. Not only do they oppose (federal) government action on principle, the thought of international cooperation based on the concept of our mutual interdependence is far worse in their view.

International unity involving a cooperative response would inevitably be characterized as a step towards one world government.

So, on this basis lets deny the science.

Now tell me where does the irrationality abide?