“That’s incorrect...I mean, what they have done is an old trick. It’s how to lie with statistics, right? And scientists can’t do that because 10 years from now, they’ll look back on my publications and say, ‘Was he right?’ But a journalist can lie with statistics. They can choose a little piece of the data and prove what they want, carefully cutting out the end. If I wanted to do this, I could demonstrate, for example, with the same data set that from 1980 to 1995 that it’s equally flat. You can find little realms where it’s equally flat. What that tells me is that 15 years is not enough to be able to tell whether it’s warming or not. And so when they take 13 years, and they say based on that they can reach a conclusion based on our data set, I think they’re playing that same game and the fact that we can find that back in 1980, the same effect, when we know it [was] warming simply shows that that method doesn’t work. But no scientist could do that because he’d be discredited for lying with statistics. Newspapers can do that because 10 years from now, nobody will remember that they showed that.”

I think its funny how they say 5 years is "short term" yet 30 years is "long term". They are doing the exact same thing they are discrediting.

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

http://web.mit.edu/...ighlights/prinn.html

if the standard is 30 years then why play games using 1/6th of that to misrepresent the data? its hardly the same thing.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I've read this twice now and I'm still not clear about what you are getting at.

---

---

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 he is saying that deniers and scientists play the same game with the statistics

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

 

>I think its funny how they say 5 years is "short term" yet 30 years is "long term". They are doing the exact same thing they are discrediting.

Did you read the whole article? I think they defended the 30-year rationale pretty well.

so he is really suggesting that, if you did a 100,000 year time span this 30 year bit would just be a cherry picked span in which the trend was upward?

so he basically pretends he hasn't been around for the many LR climate debates, and pretends he doesn't know the clear evidence that the current trend is tied to man made co2 emissions?

there is no hope is there?

---

---

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

what you fail to comprehend is that the data does not matter. this is a matter of faith, not science.

i'll explain, and, let me see how many new enemies i can make here...

the republican and democratic parties are conglomerates engineered by electoral politics. each party has to win in order to remain relevant. the democrats' catering to unions, for example, or to mexicans, seems less to me a natural attachment to the principles of each, rather each is a group that in the aggregate form a majority or near majority.

the republican party in the early 60s was an intellectual movement under buckley, with a libertarian wing headed by goldwater. then came LBJ's great society, preceded by the crusade by the kennedys to enforce a ban on separate-but-equal. since that time, democrats - who were the party of the bigots - lost the bigot vote.

roe v wade, backed by democrats who, in general, were the celebrators of a right to privacy and civil liberties, threw conservative christians into the arms of the republicans.

now you have these disparate groups of folks who really don't necessary have much in common. but the strange thing is, this has created a new "orthodoxy." quakers, shakers, and those christians who have focused on the pacifist teachings of christ (quakers say a straightforward reading of the new testament strongly supports the pacifist posture) have been left behind. this borg containing those who advocate for the need for a strong military, gun rights, christian faith, a decentralized federal government, fiscal conservatism, a protection of big business, a suspicion of those with higher educations, and a hate for those who desegregated the south, have become a monolithic group.

what i find fascinating is that many of the christians who count themselves part of this group seem to me to have remade their theology to fit this orthodoxy, rather than holding true to their orthodoxy in the face of popular opinion. one slowtwitcher pointed to the persecution he faces for his views on this site, and i pointed out to him that he should feel himself blessed, because this persecution is promised him - it's a litmus test of his faith. just make sure your persecution is coming from the right class of people. i think the stinging persecution wrote about in the new testament would be from those inside your own creed who grow tired of your constant reminder of how the true faith stands in contrast to the popular faith of the say. i think old testament prophets like jeremiah are the great examples, as was jesus himself.

if you go back ten years and you look at the websites, and the bona fides of the scientists, who make up the denier wing, you'll find quite a few whose previous jobs were as asbestos deniers, and secondhand smoke deniers, because there are plenty liars-for-hire out there who choose to make their buck in this way. they're backed variously by the tobacco companies, oil companies, chemical companies, or whomever pays their freight. i personally took the time to do the research, i interviewed folks from both private and public instititutions, the head researchers from NOAA and NASA, i read the anti-global-warming literature, and this was the fruit of my own personal investigation.

when the tradition of your religious faith, as written, as remembered, is subordinated to the tenets of a popular movement, what you get is the catholic church of the middle ages, or the muslim theocracy in iran. the typical thing is for the trajectory of one's faith to be bent by the gravity of the mob. hence the admonition to "enter through the narrow gate. for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

i wonder whether most deniers of global warming really question the science or even consider the science. there is just too much gravity pulling them toward an orthodoxy that stands on opposition to anything the other side believes. the democrats are the party that loves minorities; that hems and hedges big business; that don't honor the sanctity of the unborn; that champions and mainstreams the gay lifestyle; that wants to place limits on gun ownership; who champions secular learning over biblical faith; who don't honor the founding fathers' faith; who will not prosecute righteous wars; and who think that man is responsible for climate change and want to place additional hardships on us because of it.

it's therefore easy not to believe in whatever it is the democrats are selling, regardless of the science; who never trust the establishment's so-called science.

if you don't believe me, just ask mojozenmaster.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Quote:

so he is really suggesting that, if you did a 100,000 year time span this 30 year bit would just be a cherry picked span in which the trend was upward?

so he basically pretends he hasn't been around for the many LR climate debates, and pretends he doesn't know the clear evidence that the current trend is tied to man made co2 emissions?

there is no hope is there?

i think thats exactly what he is saying. because, you know, all that co2 our ancestors 100000 years ago were pumping into the atmosphere that we are always complaining about.

i wonder what it will take for deniers to actually acknowledge there is a problem. im not shouting doom and gloom but it almost seems that it would take catastrophic events for them to wake the fuck up.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Quote:

I think its funny how they say 5 years is "short term" yet 30 years is "long term". They are doing the exact same thing they are discrediting.

No they are not!

---

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

I think most skeptics simply don't want to pay some bullshit carbon tax.

The easiest way for us all to avoid paying "some bullshit carbon tax" is to change our ways. But they don't want to do that, either. Because that takes real, individual work. And it requires doing things for which we may not see the payoff in our lifetimes. So much easier to ignore it or denounce it and go about our ways.

---

___________________________
De que depende?

That's just to avoid deniers getting all frothy at the mouth when the graph the last 100 (or more) years and it ends up looking EXACTLY LIKE A FREAKING HOCKEY STICK

at first i had no clue where you were going and was going to suggest some meds! but then i got it and i totally agree. but what they do as the gif suggests, is try and use "science" to prop up their gut feelings/faith/contrarian position.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

the question for both dems and reps is what happens when your personal imperatives collide. the front lines of this are policies on energy and the environment.

i could see a lot of democrats listening to the SOTU and asking, "hey, i thought we were against national gas drilling. obama sounds bullish on national gas drilling. i guess that means now i'm for natural gas drilling."

on the republican side, we saw the darling of the christian conservatives voice a full throttled attack on generations of work by both parties to clean up the environment. any jew or christian (or muslim for that matter) who reads the account in the first chapter of genesis of the creation of the world and the living things on it, along with the declaration that god was pleased at what he had created, should at face value be absolutely aghast at the cavalier attitude rick perry has about the world on which we live. the question for every christian in every age is: what master do you serve? in the united states, for many christians the master is the republican party's coalition which - because it includes both big business and christians - includes party platforms that cause christians to "believe" in things like the dismantling of the EPA (a department that was incepted by the republican party to protect and clean up our environment), and the gutting of the clean air and clean water acts.

nebraskans are facing right now this clash of imperatives. if you're a farmer and you're concerned whether the keystone pipeline will affect the aquifer that is your lifeline, are you an ardent republican come what may? or have you suddenly seen the light on the need to correctly assess the environmental impact of a project before proceeding?

your core convictions, your core beliefs, should not simply consist of what your clan says it is, especially if your clan is a hypothetical and morphing construct cobbled together for expediency's sake with the aim of gaining a voting majority.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You may make enemies but you will also make (and keep) friends.
.
.

---

[ The sign of intelligence is you are constantly wondering. Idiots are always dead sure about every damn thing they are doing in their life. - Vasudev ]

Great post, Dan.

It's easier to bond against a common enemy than it is to rally around shared ideas. I think, in a lot of ways, this is represented in both parties. While I believe that GW Bush in 2000 was probably a great example of a candidate that most repiblicans could agree on, this election as well as the last one has been more about "anyone but that Democrat who opposes my single issue."

This is how you get guns, God, and greed to join forces.

Quote:

what you fail to comprehend is that the data does not matter. this is a matter of faith, not science.

i'll explain, and, let me see how many new enemies i can make here...

the republican and democratic parties are conglomerates engineered by electoral politics. each party has to win in order to remain relevant. the democrats' catering to unions, for example, or to mexicans, seems less to me a natural attachment to the principles of each, rather each is a group that in the aggregate form a majority or near majority.

the republican party in the early 60s was an intellectual movement under buckley, with a libertarian wing headed by goldwater. then came LBJ's great society, preceded by the crusade by the kennedys to enforce a ban on separate-but-equal. since that time, democrats - who were the party of the bigots - lost the bigot vote.

roe v wade, backed by democrats who, in general, were the celebrators of a right to privacy and civil liberties, threw conservative christians into the arms of the republicans.

now you have these disparate groups of folks who really don't necessary have much in common. but the strange thing is, this has created a new "orthodoxy." quakers, shakers, and those christians who have focused on the pacifist teachings of christ (quakers say a straightforward reading of the new testament strongly supports the pacifist posture) have been left behind. this borg containing those who advocate for the need for a strong military, gun rights, christian faith, a decentralized federal government, fiscal conservatism, a protection of big business, a suspicion of those with higher educations, and a hate for those who desegregated the south, have become a monolithic group.

what i find fascinating is that many of the christians who count themselves part of this group seem to me to have remade their theology to fit this orthodoxy, rather than holding true to their orthodoxy in the face of popular opinion. one slowtwitcher pointed to the persecution he faces for his views on this site, and i pointed out to him that he should feel himself blessed, because this persecution is promised him - it's a litmus test of his faith. just make sure your persecution is coming from the right class of people. i think the stinging persecution wrote about in the new testament would be from those inside your own creed who grow tired of your constant reminder of how the true faith stands in contrast to the popular faith of the say. i think old testament prophets like jeremiah are the great examples, as was jesus himself.

if you go back ten years and you look at the websites, and the bona fides of the scientists, who make up the denier wing, you'll find quite a few whose previous jobs were as asbestos deniers, and secondhand smoke deniers, because there are plenty liars-for-hire out there who choose to make their buck in this way. they're backed variously by the tobacco companies, oil companies, chemical companies, or whomever pays their freight. i personally took the time to do the research, i interviewed folks from both private and public instititutions, the head researchers from NOAA and NASA, i read the anti-global-warming literature, and this was the fruit of my own personal investigation.

when the tradition of your religious faith, as written, as remembered, is subordinated to the tenets of a popular movement, what you get is the catholic church of the middle ages, or the muslim theocracy in iran. the typical thing is for the trajectory of one's faith to be bent by the gravity of the mob. hence the admonition to "enter through the narrow gate. for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

i wonder whether most deniers of global warming really question the science or even consider the science. there is just too much gravity pulling them toward an orthodoxy that stands on opposition to anything the other side believes. the democrats are the party that loves minorities; that hems and hedges big business; that don't honor the sanctity of the unborn; that champions and mainstreams the gay lifestyle; that wants to place limits on gun ownership; who champions secular learning over biblical faith; who don't honor the founding fathers' faith; who will not prosecute righteous wars; and who think that man is responsible for climate change and want to place additional hardships on us because of it.

it's therefore easy not to believe in whatever it is the democrats are selling, regardless of the science; who never trust the establishment's so-called science.

if you don't believe me, just ask mojozenmaster.

---

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

I guess thats what happens when you care more about your team than the truth. we need to teach kids at an early age to evaluate claims and choose a position based on what the evidence says rather than rah rah team dogma.

I think this is also why its hard for me to understand being democrat or republican.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

"i could see a lot of democrats listening to the SOTU and asking, "hey, i thought we were against national gas drilling. obama sounds bullish on national gas drilling. i guess that means now i'm for natural gas drilling.""

I'm sure there are plenty of people on both sides who have this sort of thing happen. And as I type that sentence I came to think there were even more than I thought when I started typing it. I moved my estimate up because of all the issues that I find it amazing have become left/right issues and not fact/fantasy issues.

Most of these things seem to be questions of fact that we would all want to know the answer to, but have somehow become a matter of political leanings. Climate change is the one that comes immediately to mind. It is either true or false that man is causing climate change. And it is either true or false that we can do anything about it. But somehow this issue is divided pretty neatly based on political leaning.

But I also think there are a lot of people that have the same feelings I do when someone like Obama says something I don't agree with. Since I am quite left of center and live in Ohio my options are usually pretty limited. By the time of the OH residential primary the nominee is usually already decided. Come the presidential election the chances of the Republican candidate being aligned more favorably with my view of the world than the Democrat is pretty remote.

So while I don't support all things Obama or Harry Reid support, it would be a rare day when John Boehner or Newt Gingrich more closely represents my view of the world.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

....And anyone who thinks for themselves hates both political parties because of what you just described.

---

_________________________________________________

LLLEEEEEEEEEEEERRRROOOYYY JEEENNNNNKKKIIINNNNNS!!!

deniers or skeptics? Which is it?

We should all be skeptics when governments and politicians are shoving hurried laws and policies down our throats. What's the hurry? Oh yea, only so much time to make hay....

I agree with much of what you said, at least in spirit. However, I disagree with this.


The Quakers and Shakers were left behind a LONG time ago; way before the 60s. I don't think the Sahkers existed much past 1920 and they were never a dominantly popular sect. I think Quakers still exist, but barely.


Most Christians I know, and their decendants, have always had those beliefs and they continue those beliefs. (Surely, we are generalizing here.) The only difference is that there political affiliation changed from Democrat (southern) to Republican. They have not changed their theology nor their "orthodoxy" as you put it.

"we see it as a way of avoiding the tribulations of what is to come if we maintain the status quo"

i have made this case before. either the reality, or the fiction, of global warming and its effects are here. the world is moving toward green energy in any case. no getting around that. somebody's going to make the windmills. somebody's going to make the solar cells, the inverters, the smart grid components, smart power meters, electric car batteries, and so on. meanwhile, the arab/persian/south asian/south american world just gets more and more uncertain.

what is our wisest response to that, regardless of whether global warming exists or not?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Drill, baby, drill.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"The Quakers and Shakers were left behind a LONG time ago"

some might say there's always been a vestige of primitive christianity: the montanists, hussites, lollards, and on down to the quakers and to today. fox's book of martyrs doesn't detail the putting to death of christians by gentiles. rather, the putting to death of christians by other christians. the true christian, according to this theology, is never distinct from the pagan, but from the false christian. if you're a christian, and as i read the new testament, you don't want to hear, when you die, "what seduced you, having started off so well?" be on the right side of that calculus ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I think one of the underlying issues is HOW these changes including economic opportunities will come to be.

Will they be a result of market forces or will they be a result governmental authority?

There will always be uncertainties and winners and losers in the world's markets. The trick is to position ourselves so that we are poised to lead and therefore to maintain our preeminence. Right now, to some extent because of our paralyzed political system and polarized society, we are in danger of falling further and further behind in the race to develop the new technologies needed to protect our position of influence. That's the irony of it all. What is seen by some as an attempt to dismantle a super power's status is in effect just the opposite. It is a call for a vision that will help to assure that we hold onto our coveted position of dominance.

That's another one of the big problems. There is no way the necessary changes are going to come about in a timely fashion if left totally to the design of market forces. (Too many powerful market forces fighting for survival). There needs to be some government involvement and as soon as that is mentioned . . . . the free marketers scream bloody murder. With the political "atmosphere" as it is (no pun intended) compromise is unlikely and paralysis results.

absolutely
just do it properly!

---

---

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

There is no way the necessary changes are going to come about in a timely fashion if left totally to the design of market forces.

I realize this may be "your opinion" and that's fine. However, I think this is the crux of the whole issue. The people who deny climate change are doing do because they believe acceptance of man caused climate change will necessitate governmental action. (And they don't want that.)

I'm not so sure that government action necessarily follows the acceptance of man-made climate change. Suppose climate change is man-made, but its not so drastic that change needs to be forced on society through governmental action. Suppose the change exists, but it is so small and insignificant an appropriate response is "Eh, so what?"

In other words, I don't think proving climate change is man made is enough. I think the big deal is proving that it warrants a particular response. And I don't think that is something that can be PROVED. I think that is an opinion.

Effective govt run policies and procedures can be amazingly effective. Ever wonder why you dont have to wory about malaria in the u.s.?
Some problems are just too large and affect too many people to be left to the free market. Thats copounded if a large percentage of the market runs around denying there is a problem.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

"I don't think proving climate change is man made is enough. I think the big deal is proving that it warrants a particular response. And I don't think that is something that can be PROVED. I think that is an opinion."

this was exactly the point taken by south africa's president thabo mbeki in the 1990s, which caused his country to tarry in the face of an AIDS epidemic that swept his country over the next decade.

this is exactly ron paul's foreign policy argument. even if an overwhelming percent of all the CIA, state department and think tank experts are certain that a specific and credible threat exists to the U.S. that demands a response of some sort - and this sort of agreement does exist in theater after theater around the world - ron paul is unconvinced. there is no real proof. not enough for him. it is simply the opinion of these experts, which he is making an emotional decision to discard.

making absolute proof - not just to the large majority of the experts' satisfaction, but to your own satisfaction - is a foolish way to run not only a government, or a company, but your own life.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Last I checked, cigarettes are still widely available.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Duffy wrote:

Quote:

Remember that the tobacco industry effectively delayed government action against them on the same basis = you can't prove the link between tobacco and forms of cancer and heart disease.

Last I checked, cigarettes are still widely available.

Point being . . . . . fossil fuels will not disappear either.

But steps can be taken to discourage the unlimited discharge of CO2 into the atmosphere limiting their impact. And at the same time, the government and free market can work together encouraging the development of clean, safe alternatives that benefit the environment and everyone living on the planet.

Point being... Government will come to rely on carbon tax $$$ the same way it relies on tobacco tax $$$. You are aware that the government (both federal and state (CA)) make more money per pack of smokes than do tobacco companies. Government makes money per gallon of fuel we put in our cars than the guy who owns the gas station. Do you think government wants these things to go away? Please.

CARB (California Air Resource Board) and SCAQMD are the biggest impediment to emission free automobiles in this country, despite their stated goals. No gas stations, no AQMD, no $300,000 annual salary.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Maybe, but how much does the govt lose in health care costs treating smoking caused diseases?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

It's already been studied. It's a net savings for the government because the smokers die before they can suck off of the social security tit.

Here's how goes in the UK...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/...gs/smoking/86599.stm

And in the USA...

http://www.usatoday.com/...-tobacco-costs_N.htm

If you ask me, I don't think the government should be paying for peoples health care in the first place. And, for the most part (as of now) they don't.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

that is an interesting claim.
what technologies are waiting in the on deck circle that would provide emissions free automobiles and how is CARB preventing their arrival?

---

---

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

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



Or in this even longer look?


Mostly both long view show great varability in temperatures both higher and lower than current levels.

There are some things that came from a long conversation I had with someone high up the food chain at CARB that I'd be better off not being specific about.


It's not really the cars themselves. It's the infrastructure to get us away from gasoline (mainly) and diesel (collateral damage). It has to do with the permitting process of fueling stations and what is allowed and disallowed, what is encouraged and what is discouraged.

I'm mainly talking about CNG and LPG, but H2 and electric are stuck in this mess as well.

Some people are more concern with helping themselves by accomplishing a little when they could accomplish a lot, but with the price being their own obsolescence.

Think about who benefits the most from expensive regulation (and I'm talking about those who are regulated) and what their relationships are with those doing the regulating (and I'm talking about personal relationships).

I'm going to regret posting this.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Youre trying to use a graph of paleoclimatology to argue against agw? Try looking at the tiny portion of that graph where humans have had the means to make an impact. Can you even pinpoint where the industurial revolutuon took place on your graph?

akso did you read the wikipedia page you took these from? from the.text immediately preceding that graph:


Paleoclimatology has wider implications for climate change today. Scientists often consider past changes in environment and biodiversity to reflect on the current situation, and specifically the impact of climate on mass extinctions and biotic recovery. [1]

The science that you pointed to is the same science that says climate change is negatively impacted by humans.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

word

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

"Can you even pinpoint where the industurial revolutuon took place on your graph?"

I think you can see that, but i think you are missing the point, there has been plenty of variation throughout man's history You can't blame all of them on human activity.

There is nothing in your bolded area that says this supports AGW. Just that major climate changes can lead to extintions. That makes sense to me. If we have another ice age we can expect some extintions.

See now you've done it, you used data to question Veganerd's religious belief in AGW. Shame on you, these threads are meant to only be viewed and commentned on by the narrow minded, unthinking true believers.

This is so silly it hardly warrants a response but ill put it in terms you can understand.......the period of time we are discussing occurs at the very end of his graph. The graph he posted is not relevant to the discussion. We are talking about human contribution to the warming of the planet. 99% of his graph is worthless to the conversation. Pinpoint the spot on his graph where cars became common to see what im talking about.

By all means, question my position. Challenge it! Ive got zero problem with you debating the issue but at least do it in am intelligent and meaningful way. Do you have anything to add?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Absolutely, they do. Were you under the impression that climate scientists didn't know that? Or that they are hiding it from us to spread communism around the world?

what you can't see in those graphs because of the resolution, is how rapid our current warming is. If you look closely at your second graph, you will see a tiny spike labeled "PETM" which was one of the most sudden warming events in our planets history. It was of course entirely natural, but it did have severe effects on the ecosystem nonetheless, with an extinction event and massive changes in life on the planet.

The current warming happening right now is happening even faster than the PETM did, and we are able to attribute it to non natural causes.

---

---

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

Still not seeing how CARB could substantively prevent electric cars from hitting the market. In fact most of the boutique car makers *start* selling only in california first as it seems to be advantageous overall for tax reasons there.

as for CNG/LPG - just as much co2 from that as oil.
wouldn't be emissions free.

---

---

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

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?

if you don't want your side to be called out as liars, please ask them to stop lying =)

---

---

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

Isn't there a contradiction here? Isn't civilization itself a clan? We use the 'theory of majority" in a democratic/represenative government. We let our clan (Republicans, Democrats, etc.) represent us in the larger clan and then we agree to follow the laws and rules that our collective clan has established for us.

Choosing the point of where one abdicates his adherence to a philosphy is just one aspect of "the human condition;" there are other aspects (consider the seven deadly sins).

Besides, I don't think the point of civilization is to "rise above" the human condition. I think the point of civilization is how to best get along with others. Since we are social creatures, I think grouping and getting along with others IS an aspect of the human condition, not a method of "rising above" it.

When someone sees something they don't like and immediately jumps to the conclusion, "Well, there ought to be a law" is irrational in my opinion.

To use an analogy, lying is generally agreed upon to be a "bad thing." However, we don't have a law against it.

Quote:

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.

But that is NOT what is happening. Not at all.

Scientists are not alarmed simply "because the planet is warming." Scientists are not as dumb as plumbers, musicians, and triathlon coaches when it comes to science. They don't just *assume* that the warming is bad and ignore the history of temperature changes on the planet. That's not what they do AT ALL.

a) the planet is warming (we agree.....but this is not where it stops)
b) it is warming WAY FASTER than it is supposed to
c) the warming is direclty linked to C02 emissions
d) these C02 emmissions have been proven to be man made
e) the warming will continue to accelerate if nothing changes
f) all trends show the causes of the warming to be increasing


It is a disengenuous strawman to argue against a) as the ONLY reason to believe AGW.

---

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

Who is immediately jumping to a conclusion?

Science has been investigating climate change for quite some time.
The American Institute of Physics traces the scientific analysis back at least to around 1900.
http://www.aip.org/...climate/timeline.htm


And in a sense, we do have laws against lying (under certain conditions) . . . its called perjury.

"Isn't there a contradiction here? Isn't civilization itself a clan?"

everybody has his better and worse angels. you decide to which you'll listen. you can be loyal to your wife or cheat on her. your word can be your bond, or you can tell the truth or not according to expediency. you can be brave and fight, or you can be a coward and run.

the mob is the clan. civilization is what happens when members of the mob decide there is something better than the mob, and choose to rise above it. there is a distinction.

we call it the age of reason, or the age of enlightenment, because men decided to elevate their thinking. the most obvious, apparent fruit of this is democracy. the very "secular humanists" "elite media" that gingrich rails against have as their antecedents thomas hobbes, john locke, et al, whom, if they were alive today, would join thomas paine and thomas jefferson and say, "what are you talking about, newt? secular humanism is not a term of derision to us. if you want to know why we call ourselves humanists, look up studia humanitatis; if you want to know why we call ourselves secular, it's because we honor the division of church and state, and between science and belief."

what you have to decide, as a conservative, as a christian, as a republican - and i'm guessing you're all of these - is whether you're a member of the mob, or whether reason and enlightenment elevate you above the mob. the way i'll know you're still a member of the mob is if and when you incorporate the entire conservative republican orthodoxy as a monolothic belief system - when drill baby drill, cold dead hands, no new taxes, and jesus is my savior, all coexist in the same brain. it's not that they're necessarily incongruous views - tho i believe they are - it's that when 50 or 100 million people all believe in the same exact set of arguably incongruous views, it begs credulity to think you're anything else but a blind, blithe member of the mob.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The jumping to the conclusion part is the assumption that government intervention is necessary and appropriate.

Yeah, let's debate it for another 50 years. That's clearly a better solution.

Why do you guess this?

My thoughts here are from an unbiased observer, from a sociological, philosphical view. My responses are with respect to the behaviors of both sides, rather than the particulars of arguments themselves.

However, just because I disagree with you, you assume, I am "on the other side." This "for us or against us" mentality is largely what is at the heart of this and similar arguments. (oops, not "agreements")

Folks are seemingly stuck in binary thinking!

Here's a binary question for you - do you accept the scientific consensus? Yes or no?

there are more than two sides

there are crazy conservatives lying to you about climate science
crazy liberals lying to you about climate science

and experts just doing their job and telling you what the climate is doing

and everything in between

---

---

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

Here's a binary question for you - do you accept the scientific consensus? Yes or no?

What is that consensus, specifically?

If you accept the scientific consensus (see below). What other vehicles for appropriate intervention are there? Certainly free market entities will get involved, but considering the scope of the problem, some government action would appear justified.

(Example of scientific consensus): Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (16 national academies of science)

Other expressions of the scientific consensus are available here: http://www.ucsusa.org/...ic-consensus-on.html

"Why do you guess this?"

if you'd like to deny that you're a conservative, a christian, and that you are or caucus with the republicans, here's your chance. otherwise, are you asking me to divulge your "tells"? ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. I really don't KNOW the science. I generally refrain from picking a side (because thats what it would be, 50/50 picking) I have no reason not to believe you or jackmott.

I was replying to your analogy. I see a lot of bad arguments from both sides. I generally have a distaste for bad arguments, because even a correct position can be undermined by a bad argument.

I know the talking points.

Don't play dumb. Just answer the question. Or don't, I don't really care.

Why don't you go ahead with this and show us how you think.

I'm not playing dumb. I want to know if this "consensus" you mention relates to global warming or the "solution."
Because THAT distinction has been my whole point.

Then again, I get the feeling that if you cannot express exactly what that consensus is, maybe there isn't one.
Or maybe you can't explain it. If you can't describe it, are you just going along with the general gut feeling (kool-aid) of your clan?

The unbought and unpaid by the oil industry people are the bought and paid for by the climate change / federal government people.

Slowman wrote:

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].

Do you also find it interesting that many of the climate change advocates from years past have stopped believing? and have reluctantly adopted a new position: no, scientific evidence, in fact, does not support the assertion that there is global warming or that its man made.

Slowman wrote:

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 may be true of a lot of republicans, but to think that its not equally prevalent among democrats is naive at best, but probably ignorant and/ or narcissistic.



Thank you for pointing out that its not different with liberals. Which is why I cant understand why educated and well informed people still have these tired republican/democrat debates. I can honestly say I am neither. Both sides are bat shit crazy. Bush was worse than Clinton, and obama is worse than bush. No doubt in my mind, the next guy will be even worse.

and I dont see how the "conclusions and repercussions that flow from [republicans] is a lot more nonsensical - and dangerous" You have to be kidding me

Democrats are going to spend us into non-existence all the while lying to everyone by blaming on the "rich" who aren't paying their fair share and "military spending". What a F-ing joke. tax the rich a lot higher, its not even going to dent his deficits. and military spending?!? It's the biggest jobs program in the world. The only thing wrong with that from the democratic side is that the republicans beat them to the support of it. Democrats are perfectly willing to give money away to all sorts of people and programs, but, oh my, why do we need such a big military. Let's cut that and pay unemployment and foodstamp benefits to all the laid off defense sector employees and former soldiers... at least that way, they dont have to work for their money and we derive no benefit. That way they have to vote for us.

Wow. Talk about a tell. The third paragraph above belies the first paragraph.

---

___________________________
De que depende?

bring self aware is hard!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

[I'm not playing dumb. I want to know if this "consensus" you mention relates to global warming or the "solution."
Because THAT distinction has been my whole point.

Then again, I get the feeling that if you cannot express exactly what that consensus is, maybe there isn't one.
Or maybe you can't explain it. If you can't describe it, are you just going along with the general gut feeling (kool-aid) of your clan?[/quote]


Just to check, do you also have doubt about the scientific consensus when it comes to the theory of evolution?

Except that I've never voted for a republican (which you are mistakenly implying I am). You quoted me without quoting what I was replying to. If Slowman were a gun toting creationist, I'd have had a rant about republicans. He was being the democrats version of a gun toting creationist, so I went off on his "nonsensical" party. But go ahead and think you're smarter than everyone else, just like the rest of the democrats do (oops, another tell. shoot)

So somehow you see the science that supports anthropogenic climate change as being bought and paid for by
the climate change / federal government people?

I suppose this factors into account the international scope of climate change / government people? Since climate change is supported by consensus world-wide, it would follow that its all part of a global conspiracy. That's logical and consistent with the fear of the one world government plot to undermine American supremacy.

I think your on to something or perhaps, on something. (Glued some tubulars lately?)

Could you please give the details about the former climate change advocates that are now deniers?

"Why don't you go ahead with this and show us how you think."

i'm happy to. but first, and for the record. and this is the third time i've asked you if you're a christian. three times is a charm on this one. are you going to match st. peter's record now with your third denial?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Third time, I only count two!

Well, I live in the United States and many people of the world (Asians, Africans) would consider the US to be a "Christian" country. So by that definition, I am Christian.

On the other hand, I have never been baptized. To many, that would mean I am not a Christian.

Do you have another definition that you would like me to use?

And what, pray tell, does this have to do with global warming? You said that I should think for myself. Well, guess what? I do! But YOUR close-mindness will not accept that fact. You must lump me into your neat little categorical boxes. Perhaps you need to take some of your own medicine!

"what, pray tell, does this have to do with global warming?"

i explain it above, probably ad nauseum, several times in various posts. i think you just prefer not to consider what i'm writing, and that's fine.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm talking about the scientific consensus of AGW. If you can't clearly understand what that is, you haven't been paying much attention at all.

They really aren't, they are largely grad students and tenured professors who can say whatever they want and still have their job.


Name some names. There are a few in the skeptic community who CLAIM that has happened to them, but they were not ever really climate scientists to begin with. The most telling person of all is professor Meuller who started the BEST climate project because he bought into this idea that all the surface reconstructions were bogus ---> and he got the same answer. (he is a physicist) Much credit to him though since the skeptic community was funding his research but he did seems to have done a good job anyway.

---

---

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

This is so far fetched.

I have said several times that I don't think scientific proof of global warming is proof that government intervention is a necessary solution.

You have nothing to say to that issue. All you can do is come up with some sort bizarre assumption about me being a Christian.

This is so absurd.

I believe that human beings and related technology is having a negative effect on the earth.
I believe that one of the negative effects is evidenced by increased global temperature.

How's that?

This is a point of contention for me. We cant let deniers co-opt the term skeptic. Dont help them jack!



Carry on.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

you don't really believe this, do you? If you think that, its obvious you never went to graduate school. I have. My best friends have. And most of my colleagues have.

[/quote]

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;
J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

A simple google search will reveal tens of thousands of other scientists who dont think the evidence is conclusive. You just dismiss any person disagreeing with your view as not real climate scientist. Or you'll claim they are being funded by the skeptic community.

You're attacking the wrong person. I am still open. I haven't had the desire to dive into the science. I read the articles and listen to the talking points, but I dont know who's right. I have no problem saying that.

The only conclusion I've come to is that I dont really want to be associated with either side.

You're first sentence to me here tells me all I need to know about you. You are ignorant of the community. You may know the science ( I doubt it, but I'll give that to you) You obviously know the talking points.

Absolutely, but that wasn't your claim earlier.


You must be new here, I haven't *just dismissed* anybody. I have carefully decided who to dismiss over a number of years. I have looked at the raw data first hand and made my own reconstruction, I actually understand this topic pretty well. I have posted here in the LR as to how any of you can go about the process of importing raw climate data to your own pc and build your own reconstructions. This is actually remarkably easy to do, as Mueller found out =)





and you have been misled by the skeptic community. they have given you plausible stories about climate scientists and how their methods and data are poor and how they are motivated by socialist ideals and such and you have believed them, but they are largely untrue.



I know the talking points on both sides, and the science. Ask me science questions, let me lead you down the path of climate knowledge!

---

---

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

What are you talking about? This response was borderline crazy.
No, I dont see the science that supports anthropogenic climate change as being bought and paid for by the climate change / federal government people. I am sugesting that the people claiming that incontrovertible evidence exists may be as bought and paid for as the skeptics who are 100% unwilling to see the possibility as bought and paid for by the skeptics. Got it?

Then you went off the deep end. you're talking about a global conspiracy, a fear of a government plot to undermine american supremacy, glueing tubulars AND you accused me of taking drugs?!?

Do an advanced search on "global warming" or "climate" or "AGW" and filter for "posts by Jackmott."

You are discussing this with probably the one person that knows more about this subject than anyone you've ever met. Also, Jackmott is not a liberal.

---

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

No, your statement makes no sense. But if you are trying to say that both sides are bought and paid for by special interests, I simply disagree.

You only have to research the science. The 2 or 3% of climate scientists who are catagorized as deniers / skeptics (outliers) are not being published in peer-reviewed journals and it is either because their perspectives are scientifically corrupt or they are being subjected to an orchestrated conspiracy designed to silence them. You must draw your own conclusions. The scientific consensus is clear and although it will never be 100% on any issue, it is as close to unanimous as is ever possible.

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

Speak of the devil...

http://www.arb.ca.gov/...laypost.php?pno=5635

We get results, Jack!

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

*cough cough* nope. Still here.

you are creating jobs!

I gotta remember to claim that on any press releases

---

---

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

>either because their perspectives are scientifically corrupt or they are being subjected to an orchestrated conspiracy designed to silence them.

or C) their science just isn't very good. Just saying...

if you don't believe me, just ask mojozenmaster.

Homie is delighted to be the inspiration behind your Magnum Opus.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

You are discussing this with probably the one person that knows more about this subject than anyone you've ever met.

Thanks for that JOE BIDEN!!

Really!?!?

I thought his knowledge was limited to 23cm Tufo's on Nimble Crosswind Tubulars..........

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

What can I say... jackmott is a Renaissance Man.
.
.

---

[ The sign of intelligence is you are constantly wondering. Idiots are always dead sure about every damn thing they are doing in their life. - Vasudev ]