Recommended Posts
billvon 2,384
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>>It's a false construct -- altho' a rhetorically powerful one that has been
>>used in many of the debates I mentioned above -- to portray the only
>>option as a dystopic vision, in this case return to 17th Century way of living.
>Please explain how it is a false construct. If the big problem is CO2 and
>the industrial revolution, shouldn't that change?
I generate twice as much power as I use without any CO2. I heat my water without any fossil fuels. And I'm not living in the 17th century (unless part of the 17th century had air conditioning and LCD TV's that is.) It is eminently doable; we just have to want to do it.
Had we actually DONE what we said we were going to do in the 1970's, and not just paid it lip service while we kept drilling, we'd be there now. As it is, few people are even aware solar (thermal or PV) is a viable option for their homes.
>>used in many of the debates I mentioned above -- to portray the only
>>option as a dystopic vision, in this case return to 17th Century way of living.
>Please explain how it is a false construct. If the big problem is CO2 and
>the industrial revolution, shouldn't that change?
I generate twice as much power as I use without any CO2. I heat my water without any fossil fuels. And I'm not living in the 17th century (unless part of the 17th century had air conditioning and LCD TV's that is.) It is eminently doable; we just have to want to do it.
Had we actually DONE what we said we were going to do in the 1970's, and not just paid it lip service while we kept drilling, we'd be there now. As it is, few people are even aware solar (thermal or PV) is a viable option for their homes.
jcd11235 0
QuotePost #222 - and when talking about stopping using energy, it's ridiculous that you're wanting to suddenly be so literal on this point.
You better recheck. I used no such source.
BTW, it was you who emphasized that we could stop using energy. Don't blame me for being "so literal." I made sure that you meant complete non-use of energy, and not just conservation and alternative sources.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
QuoteWhat I was doing above was answering someone else's post who stated that there is a consensus because there have been no other peer reviewed studies rebuffing the claim in the past 5 years (do you remember, you answered my reply on that - bear shit rubbed on you...). I am not making the consensus argument, just poking holes in someone else's.
Yes, the study you linked to somehow managed to slip past the journal editors, but it was subsequently refuted thoroughly by the scientific community.
QuoteI guess you differ from most of the others who view money changing negatively - especially when it involves oil companies and a normal profit - a gross profit margin smaller than many other industries. Or do you want to direct who should be handling the money?
If you think the profit margin for oil companies is small, you should check out the profit margin for academic research. No matter how you look at it, the oil, gas & coal companies have far greater financial interest in maintaining the status quo than scientists have in changing it. OTOH, humanity has more interest in taking whatever steps possible toward sustainable energy use than with maintaining the status quo.
QuoteAgain, it wasn't me who said that the earth was doomed...
That's a strawman argument. No one has claimed the earth is doomed.
QuoteI would agree. I don't think it's good to be dependent on oil/coal. I wish more research and money had gone into nuclear energy. I still wish that. But that was/is a political issue. It is also a public perception issue that needs to be overcome.
Unfortunately, we have failed to deal with the issue for so long, there is now a scientific reality to be faced. We can't keep our heads buried in the sand any longer and pretend that we can make the tough choices tomorrow. Implementation of policy is political. Global warming is science.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuotePost #222 - and when talking about stopping using energy, it's ridiculous that you're wanting to suddenly be so literal on this point.
He's been highly literal all week.
rushmc 18
I have been seeing the "consensus" word again
By Steven Milloy
May 22, 2008
There’s a new global warming consensus in town. It’s too bad the once-level-headed, but now chicken-hearted Bush Administration has already skedaddled, perhaps leaving our standard of living at the mercy of Barack Obama and his high regard for the international hate-America crowd.
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced http://www.petitionproject.org/ this week that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate...”
Eminent theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson is among the many distinguished signatories.
The OISM petition represents a direct challenge to the Al Gore-touted notion that a consensus of scientists has determined that catastrophic manmade global warming is real and that any debate over the science is pointless.
You might think that the Bush administration -- which has been viciously attacked by Al Gore and the Greens for pulling the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol and being generally skeptical of the science underlying global warming alarmism -- would have embraced the new petition as support for its resistance to mandatory greenhouse gas emission caps.
But you’d be wrong. When given the chance to embrace vindication at a White House press briefing this week, deputy press secretary Dana Perino couldn’t run away fast enough.
A White House reporter asked Perino http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734 : “WorldNetDaily reports that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 PhDs, now signed a petition rejecting global warming, the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging the Earth’s climate. My question: What is the White House reaction to these 31,000 scientists?”
While Perino could have responded with something akin to either “Yes, we know about the petition and we’re looking into it” or “No, we didn’t know about the petition but we will certainly look into it," she instead dismissed the question with an abrupt, “I would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What’s your next question?”
When the reporter tried to follow-up with “That’s all?”, Perino seemed to insist on remaining oblivious to the petition and its import by stating, “That’s all I’m going to say.” (See YouTube video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O70oiUCmVa0
Well, at least Perino didn’t pull an ‘Al Gore’ and label Dyson and the other 31,071 scientist-signatories as members of the Flat Earth Society.
In Perino’s defense, one might say that it is reasonable to disregard such petitions since science is about what is known or what can be proved about the natural world through systematic investigation, rather than the number of scientists who are willing to publicly commit to a particular opinion.
On the other hand, global warming alarmism has been marketed to the public on the basis of the latter rather than the former.
We’ve been told that there’s a “consensus” of scientists -- most often exemplified by the group of scientists working under the auspices of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- that agrees manmade greenhouse gas emissions are or will wreak havoc on the climate. Although dispute exists over whether there is, in fact, an actual consensus within the IPCC, head counts of scientists seem to be the name of the global warming game.
Since that is the case, the 31,000 scientist signatories assembled by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, would seem to trump the six hundred or so in the alleged IPCC consensus. Sadly, the White House has taken such a beating over the years on climate that facts no longer matter.
As further evidence of its shell-shocked state of fact avoidance, just last week the Bush Administration announced that it was listing the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act -- even though there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago and predictions of the bear’s demise are entirely based on politically-inspired speculation.
The fact of the 31,000 scientists should matter to the White House, however, given what likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said this week.
In a campaign stop in Oregon, Obama called for the U.S. to “lead by example” on global warming. “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK… That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he said.
A President Obama would apparently decide how to regulate the pantries, thermostats and modes of personal transportation of his fellow Americans based on the emotional temperature of every non-American who happens to harbor an opinion on how we should live.
And although Republican presidential hopeful John McCain hasn’t been as blunt as Obama with respect to rolling back the American lifestyle, as reported in this column last week, he’s been drinking from the same batch of Green Kool-Aid.http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080515.html
Sadly, the initial response from the Bush Administration to relevant new facts that could prevent the imminent Obama-McCain attack on our standard of living seems to be, “See no consensus, hear no consensus, speak no consensus.”
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
Hey, You guys cross the pond. You are starting to get it! 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/green-tax-revolt-britons-will-not-foot-bill-to-save-planet-819703.html
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jcd11235 0
QuoteThe Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced http://www.petitionproject.org/ this week that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate...”
Didn't we already Cover this?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuoteThe Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced http://www.petitionproject.org/ this week that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate...”
Didn't we already Cover this?
Yes. OISM is a joke.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced http://www.petitionproject.org/ this week that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate...”
Didn't we already Cover this?
Yes. OISM is a joke.
Only because you dont agree with it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jcd11235 0
QuoteOnly because you dont agree with it
No, because they rely on an official sounding name to hide the fact that they have no credibility as a research institution.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteOnly because you dont agree with it
No, because they rely on an official sounding name to hide the fact that they have no credibility as a research institution.
Now, now - you both could be correct
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteOnly because you dont agree with it
No, because they rely on an official sounding name to hide the fact that they have no credibility as a research institution.
It looks to me like they are not acting as a research org. Just collection petion names, . .. . .. that kill the consensus argument the alarmists like to use
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced http://www.petitionproject.org/ this week that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate...”
Didn't we already Cover this?
Yes. OISM is a joke.
Only because you dont agree with it
You might want to read what Sourcewatch has to say about them and their bogus petition:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Some interesting names on that petition, like the "MASH" staff!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced http://www.petitionproject.org/ this week that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate...”
Didn't we already Cover this?
Yes. OISM is a joke.
Only because you dont agree with it
You might want to read what Sourcewatch has to say about them and their bogus petition:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Some interesting names on that petition, like the "MASH" staff!
Have you EVER seen any publicly signed petition that was with out mistakes and sigs places by those wishing to be saboteurs? Political or otherwise? So you are saying ALL the sigs are bogus?
I hope so
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Amazon 7
QuoteHave you EVER seen any publicly signed petition that was with out mistakes and sigs places by those wishing to be saboteurs? Political or otherwise? So you are saying ALL the sigs are bogus?
I hope so
Seems most on your "list" dont want to be there Marc
http://www.newwest.net/city/article/10347/C396/L396/
Were They Duped?
In response to the the claim that the Anti-Global Warming Petition Project had gathered 19,000 signatures of scientists who allegedly downplay the significance of climate change, the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote this response to suggest that many of the signees might have been duped.
"In the spring of 1998," the Union writes, "mailboxes of US scientists flooded with a packet from the 'Global Warming Petition Project,' including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed 'Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth,' a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that 'increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate,' a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide 'would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.'
"The sponsor, the little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, 'the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.'
"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations."
Shame shame shame....
billvon 2,384
>Only because you dont agree with it
No. Because people checked into it and found out that most of the signatures were forgeries/not climate scientists.
No. Because people checked into it and found out that most of the signatures were forgeries/not climate scientists.
rushmc 18
Quote>Only because you dont agree with it
No. Because people checked into it and found out that most of the signatures were forgeries/not climate scientists.
MOST of those making the claims of GWing are not either
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,384
>MOST of those making the claims of GWing are not either
Quite true. Which is why it pays to listen to scientists and not the cast of M*A*S*H, actors or politicians when it comes to learning how our world works.
Quite true. Which is why it pays to listen to scientists and not the cast of M*A*S*H, actors or politicians when it comes to learning how our world works.
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced http://www.petitionproject.org/ this week that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate...”
Didn't we already Cover this?
Yes. OISM is a joke.
Only because you dont agree with it
You might want to read what Sourcewatch has to say about them and their bogus petition:
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Some interesting names on that petition, like the "MASH" staff!
Have you EVER seen any publicly signed petition that was with out mistakes and sigs places by those wishing to be saboteurs? Political or otherwise? So you are saying ALL the sigs are bogus?
I hope so
You grasp at straws, Marc. OISM is a JOKE. Their petition is BOGUS. The National Academy of Science even put out a statement dissociating themselves from it on account of it's deliberately deceptive appearance. And that's just the way it is.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I would agree. I don't think it's good to be dependent on oil/coal. I wish more research and money had gone into nuclear energy. I still wish that. But that was/is a political issue. It is also a public perception issue that needs to be overcome.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites