The Climate Change Climate Change

[DanG 1]

Quote

I know I know, you must be unable, too lazy or just troll so, I thought I might help you look at some, not all, of what was metioned. Your welcome

Or, maybe you're relying on the fact that people are lazy, because even a cursory review of your links shows they are not at all what you claim. Do you read the shit you reference?

Quote

Some other printing regarding the lies of the Obama Admin on this topic. It it is so true, why lie?
Got an idea?

http://gardenstatepatriot.blogivists.com/tag/joanne-simpson/

This blogger actually wrote the following on the cited page, "Just stop spewing so much of that bad old CO2 stuff - you know that pesky gas that comes from things like trees and plants - into the air and everything will be just dandy." Please continue to take your environmental advice from people who think trees emit CO2.

Quote

It seems even the much praised Hansen is changing his tune now

http://epw.senate.gov/...ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

That piece (written by Congressional Republicans) is about how someone else thinks Hansen is wrong.

Quote

And how about some links to some of the peer reviewed stuff all you alarmists are so quick to use

Links to the papers are in the reports

http://epw.senate.gov/...AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

I don't have time to read all the links provided, but quite a large number of them are not from peer-reviewed journals as claimed, some are even from blogs and non-scientific news outlets. Also, that link is from 2007, so it hard to say how much of that information has been refuted.

Quote

But, now that names are starting to come out, this site is interesting.

http://www.scitopia.org/...citopia-+Peer+Review

Not sure what you're trying to show here. The link brings up a blank search page. Thanks anyway.

Just putting a bunch of URL's that you haven't read into a response is not the same as providing evidence of anything.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

Also learned that Hansen has now said that the Bush admin did not try and stop him from speaking and that HE actually violated NASA employee rules himself. Add to this that in Jan of this year he is now calling himself a skeptic.

Source for either? The previous cite, as I pointed out, was some other guy at NASA saying how Hansen was wrong. And the fact that Hansen had to violate employees rules sort of implies that he was told to keep quiet.

There's a profile of Hansen in last week's New Yorker. He is most certainly not a skeptic.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

If they are so damned sure they are right, why not have the debate? HHhmmmm? from the link

------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
------------------------------------------------------------
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
------------------------------------------------------------

Also from the link:

Quote

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

What happened to your passion for hearing both sides of the story? Only when the other side is yours?

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And, as I previously pointed out, the cost of said sustainabilty is NOT included in the price of Lawrocket's gas for his guzzler.

Bullshit. When the oil climbs tto $3k per barrel, I suspect that it will be a reflection of the lack of sustainability of the supply. That whole thing about oil being what it's worth.

t.

Attitudes exactly like yours are what resulted in having to set up the Superfund to clean up toxic waste dumps like Love Canal. All the time you pollute without paying the costs, you are passing the real cost on to someone esle.

Attitudes like yours resulted in evacuating entire towns like Times Beach in a panic and then, 20 years later, saying that we may have overreacted.

Attitudes like yours resulted in putting MTBE in gasoline to make it more environmentally friendly, thus creating additional well-intentioned (no pun intended) havoc.

Attitudes like mine resulted in Superfund having a structure that had the companies who did the polluting pony up the dough to pay for the cleanup. .

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

CO2 is not a polutant. It is a politica pawn of those who believe they have people like you out there.

maybe so but CO is,

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html

Maybe you should go back to school!

No, you mean I need to go back to your school.

CO2 is a part of the nature of this planet. Labeling it as a polutant is political

So is arsenic. So is mercury. Your statement, as always, defies all logic.

I did not know you breathed out arsenic. got to be very bad breath

Nice non-sequitur there.

You brought up the topic that naturally occuring substances in the environment should not be labeled as being pollutants, and got caught out.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And, as I previously pointed out, the cost of said sustainabilty is NOT included in the price of Lawrocket's gas for his guzzler.

Bullshit. When the oil climbs tto $3k per barrel, I suspect that it will be a reflection of the lack of sustainability of the supply. That whole thing about oil being what it's worth.

t.

Attitudes exactly like yours are what resulted in having to set up the Superfund to clean up toxic waste dumps like Love Canal. All the time you pollute without paying the costs, you are passing the real cost on to someone esle.

Attitudes like yours resulted in evacuating entire towns like Times Beach in a panic and then, 20 years later, saying that we may have overreacted.

Attitudes like yours resulted in putting MTBE in gasoline to make it more environmentally friendly, thus creating additional well-intentioned (no pun intended) havoc.

Attitudes like mine resulted in Superfund having a structure that had the companies who did the polluting pony up the dough to pay for the cleanup. .

You just destroyed your own argument there, Mr. Laywer.

[lawrocket 3]

How so? Admitting that, yes, my vehicle has higher emissions than 20% of the vehicles on the road?

By my saying that the companies qho are responsible pony up the dough? Gee. The cost of this is put into the fuel. thus, I AM paying the costs of the damages I cause through fuel purchase.

How about that? Wow!

My problem? I have no problem with using cleaner technologies. I have no problem with solar (and when I can come up with the scratch to install a system I will.)

My wife and I have replaced all of our appliances. Just this past fall I had my house reinsulated. I installed ceiling fans in every room. I put in new fiberglass doors with a high insulation rating.

I also elected to participate in a program where the electric company can shut off power to my AC at times of peak need to prevent blackouts. I give up my power so that others, including hippies, may have their AC. It hit 108 at my home yesterday. And having no AC for 20 minutes per hour was manageable thanks to ceiling fans and improved insulation making 83 on the thermostat acceptable and spikes to 86 tolerable.

I did the aforementioned because of the suggestion of someone I trust - billvon.

I drive an SUV to and from work - one reaching ULEV II rating and that I'm averaging 21.7 mpg lifetime. I believe it is the safest I can get - even though it has been suggested that I am somehow a bad guy because I may survive a crash that would kill me if I were driving a subcompact.

Because I am unapologetic about choice of vehicle I am the kind of guy who created Love Canal.

Hey - your farts smell really good, don't they?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Also learned that Hansen has now said that the Bush admin did not try and stop him from speaking and that HE actually violated NASA employee rules himself. Add to this that in Jan of this year he is now calling himself a skeptic.

Source for either? The previous cite, as I pointed out, was some other guy at NASA saying how Hansen was wrong. And the fact that Hansen had to violate employees rules sort of implies that he was told to keep quiet.

There's a profile of Hansen in last week's New Yorker. He is most certainly not a skeptic.

In the original link

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3605582;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

If they are so damned sure they are right, why not have the debate? HHhmmmm? from the link

------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
------------------------------------------------------------
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
------------------------------------------------------------

Also from the link:

Quote

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

What happened to your passion for hearing both sides of the story? Only when the other side is yours?

So, why suppress it?

I am not the one attacking sources constantly am I. I am the one who says neither side has proven anything yet have I?

Neck hurt?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Please read before replying.

The original link (Post 1) did not refer to Hansen at all.

Your second link was about a guy who was characterized as Hansen's boss (although he wasn't), who thinks Hansen is wrong.

Neither link says that Hansen is a denier. Neither link discusses Hansen's being hushed up.

Please stop asserting your beliefs as factual and then posting links to unrelated articles as proof. You're wasting everyone's time.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Please read before replying.

The original link (Post 1) did not refer to Hansen at all.

Your second link was about a guy who was characterized as Hansen's boss (although he wasn't), who thinks Hansen is wrong.

Neither link says that Hansen is a denier. Neither link discusses Hansen's being hushed up.

Please stop asserting your beliefs as factual and then posting links to unrelated articles as proof. You're wasting everyone's time.

Correxct, it was the second set of links

If you will do the same???

Quote

Scientists are increasingly anxious? Well, apparently only those in Gore’s circle of friends because apparently these credible scientists must all be frauds (Hat tip to Conservatives with Attitude!).

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

My necks hurts sometimes. I think I sleep on it funny. What the fuck does that mean?

And why post a reply with a link to another thread that discusses the exact same thing? Yet again another example of your belief in quantity over quality.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

Quote

My necks hurts sometimes. I think I sleep on it funny. What the fuck does that mean?

And why post a reply with a link to another thread that discusses the exact same thing? Yet again another example of your belief in quantity over quality.

It hurts when one keeps their nose too damn high in the air!

As of Hansen, I mis-read the page. I was however partly correct

Quote

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.


Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears. [See: U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims & See Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’ & Gore laments global warming efforts: 'I've failed badly' - Washington Post – November 11, 2008 ]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Hansen not mentioned. Please read before replying.

God you're frustrating.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

In the link are more links from papers and sources all over the place.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B6A8BAA3-802A-23AD-4650-CB6A01303A65

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

It also must hurt keeping your head buried in the sand. Oh snap.

I pointed out your error about five posts ago. If you'd read what people wrote before replying it might make this easier on everyone.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

Quote

It also must hurt keeping your head buried in the sand. Oh snap.

I pointed out your error about five posts ago. If you'd read what people wrote before replying it might make this easier on everyone.

Hope it makes you feel better!!



dont change much in the big picture though does it??

Proves Hansen is a lieing piece of crap however

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

If they are so damned sure they are right, why not have the debate? HHhmmmm? from the link

------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
------------------------------------------------------------
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
------------------------------------------------------------

Also from the link:

Quote

The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

What happened to your passion for hearing both sides of the story? Only when the other side is yours?

Quote

As the EPA wraps up its proposed rule-making process that seeks to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant harmful to human life, Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says the federal agency has suppressed a critical internal report.

"One of their career analysts who's been there for nearly 40 years did a study criticizing the agency's approach. His boss told him that study would be kept concealed because it would only shake things up," he explains. "Namely, the administration had decided what direction to take; namely that carbon dioxide would be regulated, and this report would only cause trouble for the agency and for that office."

Kazman says his organization was able to examine a draft of the study and basically concluded that in looking at the real-world data, warming has stopped in the last eight years. It added that in the past, ocean cycles have had greater influence on climate change than have carbon dioxide emissions.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Proves Hansen is a lieing piece of crap however

Are you even fucking listening to yourself?

What you've posted "proves" nothing other than the fact that you don't read what you write (or what any body else writes, for that matter).

Hansen has not been quoted or referenced by anything your posted other than an article that says some other guy at NASA disagrees with him. You haven't shown anything with regard to him being hushed up other than the other guy claiming he wasn't, and then turning around and saying that Hansen was violating policy by speaking out. Which is it? Either he was allowed to say what he wanted, or he wasn't. You can't have it both ways.

Frustration level is rising. Now I remember why I usually don't bother.

- Dan G

[redlegphi 0]

He already fucking replied to this for Christ's sake! For the love of God, read his replies before you hit the reply button.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

He already fucking replied to this for Christ's sake! For the love of God, read his replies before you hit the reply button.

It must not have sunk in the first time.

You will also notice I post the whole thing to start. You can read and think for yourself. A practice many others here should learn. But debate is not wanted.

And if you dont like it, dont read, stay out of speakers corner. I am not leaving and you cant make me either. Live 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

[rushmc 18]

Here, try this

http://climatesci.org/category/climate-change-metrics/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Yes or no question: did you read the paper, or just the synopsis on the climatesci.org page?

I don't think the paper says what you think it says. It fact, it doesn't say anything about global, long-term climate change, or its possible causes.

But don't let that get in the way. Keep posting links to things you haven't read or don't understand.

- Dan G

[makeithappen40 0]

>Will you be making that determination or will someone else?

Did I make that determination? You will "have to" show me where I did.

>Every now and then I have good reasons for causing planetary chaos - but only so much as necessary to have a safe ride.

Or so we hope. Even you said that safety may (or may not) mean something else. That leaves the door open for other reasons to think SUV's in general (or even yours) are dangerous.

>Actually, you did. You said "you have to...". It's a fairly innocent thing to most. Not to me. I find it to be a statement exercising authority. Which leads to certain ideas about the speaker

Ok. Unfortunately, you know I didn't put it in a context that exersizes control over your will. As in, it means that adopting a pure version of that philosophy means that there are ill effects, and those ill effects, left untouched, will turn out to be something to be attended to, that is, if you so decided to.

We will examine another statement.

"You have to add water to the cake mix to make the batter."

Unfortunately, the notion of "have to" can occur outside of authoritative requirement. Whether there is someone telling you to add water to the mix or not, you still cannot obtain the desired result without attending to the ingredients/steps.

"To skydive you have to get out of the airplane"
"To crawl you have to be on all fours"
"To use a computer, you have to provide the computer electricity"

No one is saying that you "have to" do anything, or even that you "should do" them here. Of course, we could create ethical statements or authoritative statements out of those above.

"Get out of the airplane so you can skydive"
"Get on all fours so you can crawl"
"Provide the computer electricity, so you can use it"

"If you want to skydive, then you should get of the airplane"
"If you want to crawl, you should get on all fours"
"If you want to use the computer, you should provide the computer electricity"

There is a very sharp difference between each set of sentences. Please don't confuse them.

>"I believe the limitations are desirable when the exercise of one person's freedom interfered with the freedom of another"
Might your remaining course of action involve doing something about this? <- Does this say that you should or that someone is telling you to?

>When you write "you have to" it sure as hell does. You told me I have no choice.

In the interpretation that you are predisposed to, sure. See above.

>The former presents a subkective opinion as objective fact
(heres the statement again)
"you have to add further instructions or restrictions"

(heres a parallel statement)
"You have to add water to mix to make cake mix"
The latter, actually, is an objective fact. You can present "have to" statements as objective fact without losing the meaning. This is similiar to the "you have to do something to repair the damages of self-interest."

>Different people have different perspectives based upon individual cloices of what it important

Uh huh. That is why there are so many of you out there who drive the same cars, work in the same cities, eat the same types of foods, have the same diseases, see the same doctors, watch the same television programs, go to the same churches, take the same classes, have the same discussions, wear the same clothes, and adopt the same political perspectives that have been on paper since Plato's Republic.

>There it is again. Do what you think you have to do. I would greatly prefer if you left it to me to decide what I have to do for myself.

Why, it looks like you have used the same commandeering language toward me. "Do what you think you have to do."
Did you mean to say that I am free to do what I please? Or could that statement be misconstrued as an authoritative suggestion as well?