|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 23, 2009 23:59:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Sept 24, 2009 0:40:32 GMT
Hilarious title!  |
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Sept 24, 2009 0:49:44 GMT
"All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above."
That is interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 24, 2009 7:39:33 GMT
"All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above."
There is, of course, the satellite record which shows ~0.4 deg warming over the past 30 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 24, 2009 8:45:38 GMT
"All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above."There is, of course, the satellite record which shows ~0.4 deg warming over the past 30 years. Which must be due to CO 2 as you can't think of anything else that fits your view of the 'facts' - therefore its fine to tax industries into bankruptcy (quote Obama) or rather drive them all to China. This is the Kelvin fallacy taken to extreme absurdity. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 24, 2009 12:30:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 24, 2009 12:32:48 GMT
"
There is, of course, the satellite record which shows ~0.4 deg warming over the past 30 years. And 0.4oC is meaningful in what way in the real world? Not. At. All. One of the classic traits of all bad science is to confabulate huge trends out of tiny changes. AGW is a perfect example of this. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2009 17:29:25 GMT
"All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above."There is, of course, the satellite record which shows ~0.4 deg warming over the past 30 years. The issue is not the most recent 30 years. The issue is the usual spate of phony science that always appears to support politically driven alarmism like "unprecedented" warming. We all know the temperature naturally oscillates from some mysterious force that the AGW alarmists claims does not exist. . . .and dummies up proxy records to prove does not exist - e.g. the hockey stick. So not only do you have a motive, you have a means, and you have a closely-knit group of potential conspirators that are acting quite guilty (slow speed bronco chases being the analogy here). Now none of that is proof of guilt but somebody needs to stop the Bronco and check for a bloody knife in the tire boot. This issue just keeps getting weirder and weirder as we know have them shredding disks and wiping hard drives. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 24, 2009 18:20:44 GMT
Which must be due to CO2 as you can't think of anything else that fits your view of the 'facts'...
Can you think of "anything else"?
...therefore its fine to tax industries into bankruptcy (quote Obama) or rather drive them all to China.
I don't remember saying that. Can you find anywhere where I've mentioned taxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 24, 2009 18:26:34 GMT
And 0.4oC is meaningful in what way in the real world?
Not. At. All.
It' s meaningful because it's consistent with an increase of ~1-1.5 deg for 2xCO2 which is what basic theory predicts.
One of the classic traits of all bad science is to confabulate huge trends out of tiny changes.
AGW is a perfect example of this.
See above.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 24, 2009 19:08:15 GMT
"All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above."There is, of course, the satellite record which shows ~0.4 deg warming over the past 30 years. Okay well that scuppers our attempt to deny recent warming. But instead of taking any responsibility for our mistake we will just fallback to claims of "it doesn't matter" and "it might not be co2" and even better we will speak as if it was you who were the one to bring a false argument to the thread. Oh and we will conveniently forget the point about the satellite records and you can be sure we will be invoking the surface records again in the near future in an attempt to deny recent warming. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 24, 2009 19:33:53 GMT
"All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above."There is, of course, the satellite record which shows ~0.4 deg warming over the past 30 years. Okay well that scuppers our attempt to deny recent warming. But instead of taking any responsibility for our mistake we will just fallback to claims of "it doesn't matter" and "it might not be co2" and even better we will speak as if it was you who were the one to bring a false argument to the thread. Oh and we will conveniently forget the point about the satellite records and you can be sure we will be invoking the surface records again in the near future in an attempt to deny recent warming. I dont thing anybody who has studied the topic denies recent warming surely? In North America, the winter of 1784 was the longest and one of the coldest on record. It was the longest period of below-zero temperatures in New England, the largest accumulation of snow in New Jersey, and the longest freezing over of Chesapeake Bay. There was ice skating in Charleston Harbor, a huge snowstorm hit the south, the Mississippi River froze at New Orleans, and there was ice in the Gulf of Mexico.[10][11]the voyage of 1815 was truncated by Hudson Strait pack ice,
which prevented the return of the ships Eddystone and Hadlow
through Hudson Strait into the Atlantic Ocean. Faced with the
prospect of overwintering in the Bay, both vessels sailted to the
comparatively safe anchorage of Strutton Sound in James Bay
(Fig. 3) and were to remain there, ice-bound, until 12 August
of the following year. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 24, 2009 19:37:23 GMT
Okay well that scuppers our attempt to deny recent warming. But instead of taking any responsibility for our mistake we will just fallback to claims of "it doesn't matter" and "it might not be co2" and even better we will speak as if it was you who were the one to bring a false argument to the thread. Oh and we will conveniently forget the point about the satellite records and you can be sure we will be invoking the surface records again in the near future in an attempt to deny recent warming. I dont thing anybody who has studied the topic denies recent warming surely? Then why is a newspaper article that does just that cited? And why do so many people attack glc when he points out it's wrong? There's a lot of "trying to get away with it" going on |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 24, 2009 19:50:59 GMT
"All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above."There is, of course, the satellite record which shows ~0.4 deg warming over the past 30 years. Okay well that scuppers our attempt to deny recent warming. But instead of taking any responsibility for our mistake we will just fallback to claims of "it doesn't matter" and "it might not be co2" and even better we will speak as if it was you who were the one to bring a false argument to the thread. Oh and we will conveniently forget the point about the satellite records and you can be sure we will be invoking the surface records again in the near future in an attempt to deny recent warming. You might try reading the article. In particular, the part quoted in the original post should cause some concern. But if not, you can conveniently forget that temps have varied in the past without the aid of our industry (maybe that should cause us to stop and consider that maybe the answer isn't as simple as us taking "responsibility"). You might also conveniently forget that the period of time from 1979 is such a miniscule amount of time when we are talking in terms of the life of earth and the Sun that maybe we really can't draw conclusions that it is indicative of anything out of the ordinary. Maybe it is just the first time we have observed this happening. Maybe we just put a stethoscope to the earth's chest (so to speak) and suddenly started screaming "OH MY GOSH! It's going 'bump bump!' We really need to stop this since it is so obviously not natural!" Maybe we can claim "We already know and understand everything that could possibly cause this, and the only thing it could be is us and our CO2 production." (Sorry, that's the most ridiculous claim I hear from either side.) And, of course, we could all get so carried away with "taking responsibility" and trying to reduce CO2 that we don't think about things like "elevated CO2 may be exactly what is needed for the current level of world population to be able to feed itself." I don't know if it is, but at this point, I have no confidence in the simplistic answers I read coming primarily from your side, and the feeble attempt at rhetoric certainly doesn't help your argument. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 24, 2009 19:53:51 GMT
I dont thing anybody who has studied the topic denies recent warming surely? Then why is a newspaper article that does just that cited? And why do so many people attack glc when he points out it's wrong? There's a lot of "trying to get away with it" going on Did you read the same article I just read? If so, maybe you can tell us: Is the article denying warming? or questioning the accuracy of the data and lack of forthcimingness from someone using that data. |
|
