Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

[kallend 1,683]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Unfortunatly for you and billvon, the smoking analogy sucks . . .

You better tell all the climate-change deniers who used to be smoking-causes-cancer deniers, then!

>Now, lets look at the agendas of you and billvon.

Yes, let's look at our respective agendas.

I work for a telecom company. We make chips that go into cellphones. Whether or not climate change progresses rapidly or slowly, and whether or not we try to mitigate it, people buy cellphones - and I make money.

Now let's look at your agenda. If people start admitting that ever-higher concentrations of CO2 are a bad thing, the industry you rely on (coal power) suffers.

Your agenda is to make as much money as you can. That's not a bad thing - it's what capitalism is based on. Therefore, your agenda includes denying anything that has to do with climate change, for your own personal profit.

>You do all under the guise that YOU know what is best and all us
>other bastards are killing the planet.

Yep. And such concepts have proven to work in the past, despite all the deniers screaming bloody murder that pollution isn't bad, that CFC's aren't damaging the ozone layer, and that pollution controls will destroy the US.

People remember that stuff. They remember when the car companies claimed that CAFE and pollution requirements would bankrupt them. They remember when industry claimed that fuel efficiency requirements would result in everyone driving tiny econoboxes by 1990. They remember when a tobacco-funded denial group told them smoking was safe. They remember when industry claimed that pollution controls wouldn't clean the air in Los Angeles.

And after a while, even people who aren't paying much attention start realizing that the coal, tobacco, oil and energy industries are lying to them - or at best stretching the truth to make as much money as possible. And again, there's nothing wrong with that - but it does tell you how much credibility you should place on their screaming denials.

No billvon, I make money from the energy sector. Despite what you preach and pontificate, energy compaies will continue to make money because they will adjust. The only ones that will suffer are those who have to pay the stupid inflated costs because of the insanity that is the AGW movement. So in that arena it does affect me and everybody. We are curretly buidling the Whisper Willow Wind farm. Just wait to see what the effect of this capital investment on our customers rates are. you can personally follow it early next year. You should be proud!

Now

Keep changing the topic if you want. you have yet to address any specifics in his work. Makes you, not me, look desperate!

I will wear the denier label with pride to stop you and yours to tell me how I have to live. Ya, I hate socialism. That which you are preaching........

"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

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

Oh, I understand more than you can stand my liberal freind. what you hate is you can no longer shut me up. Sucks to be you............

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No billvon, I make money from the energy sector. Despite what you preach and pontificate, energy compaies will continue to make money because they will adjust. The only ones that will suffer are those who have to pay the stupid inflated costs because of the insanity that is the AGW movement.

This is also true for big tobacco. In spite of the mass extortion by the states and the ever increasing taxes, Altria continues to do fine. Their customers pay a lot more per pack, so they're not so fine. But given a choice, Altria would prefer not to go this route, as it is easier to make money on smokes that cost $2/pack instead of $5.

Coal is the easiest money maker there is. Unless the energy company has to, they won't change. Exxon in particular is adamant that they only know oil and is not pursuing new age energy since its not their core competence. So they would find it much more effective to deny if the truth is contrary to selling oil forever.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

No billvon, I make money from the energy sector. Despite what you preach and pontificate, energy compaies will continue to make money because they will adjust. The only ones that will suffer are those who have to pay the stupid inflated costs because of the insanity that is the AGW movement.

This is also true for big tobacco. In spite of the mass extortion by the states and the ever increasing taxes, Altria continues to do fine. Their customers pay a lot more per pack, so they're not so fine. But given a choice, Altria would prefer not to go this route, as it is easier to make money on smokes that cost $2/pack instead of $5.

Coal is the easiest money maker there is. Unless the energy company has to, they won't change. Exxon in particular is adamant that they only know oil and is not pursuing new age energy since its not their core competence. So they would find it much more effective to deny if the truth is contrary to selling oil forever.

So still the debate is moved to the evil oil comanies and not to whether there is any real significance to the data provided.

Which, in your opinion, is a more honest debate? Or, does that mater?

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So still the debate is moved to the evil oil comanies and not to whether there is any real significance to the data provided.

Which, in your opinion, is a more honest debate? Or, does that mater?

You can't sweep away the fact that the 'renowned' scientist is on the payroll. It's that simple.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

[We are in medieval times with our understanding of solid state physics, but we can make pretty damn good cell phones and flat screen TVs with the knowledge we have. We are in the Dark Ages with our understanding of polycrystalline plasticity, but we can make pretty good beer cans with the knowledge we have.

In other words, I disagree with your assessment.

Hey, you can disagree. That's fine. But I'm not going to bet my future on alchemy. Instead, I'm going to say, "You make pretty good beer cans. I respect that. You've put a lot of work into mastering just the right alloy. Pardon me for being a skeptic, but I can't be sure that aluminum wires are as risk free as you say. There are things you don't understand, and I don't want to be starting any fires."

They hadn't fully thought about expansion coeffeicients and the like.

Hence, when I know that there is a heckuva lot that is not understood and not explained, I'm think it prudent to say, "Hey, guys. If you don't know what's going on now, I think that will implicate your predictions about the future."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

So still the debate is moved to the evil oil comanies and not to whether there is any real significance to the data provided.

Which, in your opinion, is a more honest debate? Or, does that mater?

You can't sweep away the fact that the 'renowned' scientist is on the payroll. It's that simple.

That's why one poster in this thread has posted about uncertainties with the conclusions. Other than that, who pays him as a consultant has been the dominant attack.

That's science for you. That's how science is debated now. It's not about the science, but about the scientist.

Please note - nobody without a preconceived subjective agenda gives a rats ass about who is the proponent of science. People who point out such political involvements are clouding scientific judgment and reason with political positions.

I'm guilty of it. So is anyone who hasn't commented upon the conclusions, but rather commented about political agendas.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Oh, I understand more than you can stand my liberal freind. what you hate is you can no longer shut me up. Sucks to be you............

Ahem - I never could shut you up.

You ARE your own worst enemy in this discussion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

Tobacco - Climate. You don't see the pattern?

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — [pauses] - shame on you.
Fool me ....

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Tobacco - Climate. You don't see the pattern?

There's an old saying in Tennessee ? I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee ? that says, fool me once, shame on ? [pauses] - shame on you.
Fool me ....

See a patterb? I guess one could argue that science will be sculpted by those who make a shitload of money from it. Considering that those who stand to make money from the current paradigm are from the alarmist side of the spectrum, I can see your point.

I also recall rhetoric on both sides, though not as spectacular as the execs who didn't just say, "yeah. It's addictive and we give them more nicotine because that's what they want."

What is see is conversation dominated by fringe alarmists and deniers. Recall that Hansen admitted that since his doom and gloom and death message had taken that now we might want to start getting a bit more realistic.

Hmmm. And you wonder whom I trust. Neither. I see the profit motive for petrochemical firms. I get that.

I also see the profit motive for the competitors. The Snake Oil salesmen of yesterday and today point to the hazards of big pharma, of the "safe and natural" ingredients.

The alarmists are simply creating a market rfor themselves. The easiest way to make money is the destruction of competition.

The coal industry LOVES "zero emissions vehicles." How many anti-gasoline and diesel studies do you think are funded by coal?

It's life, professor. I myself will look at the science instead of the proponent.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,476]

> Despite what you preach and pontificate, energy compaies will continue
> to make money because they will adjust.

Not if you can help it! You've been dead-set against any 'adjustment' from day one; you've been very clear about that. Even called it socialism recently!

But in any case, some energy companies will indeed adjust. Some will be so fossilized in their ways that they will collapse when they cannot adjust. New, smarter companies will form that CAN adjust, and they will make billions.

>I will wear the denier label with pride . . .

Fair enough. I prefer to concentrate on the science than on political denialism - but whatever floats your boat.

[billvon 2,476]

>That's science for you. That's how science is debated now.

No, that's how politics is debated now. Very little science is debated here. RushMC posts the latest thing he gets from Newsmax and makes some disparaging remarks about other scientists. Other people reply and disagree. When cornered, he says "well, I just posted that, I didn't write it. But Al Gore is a fucking asshole. SOCIALISM!"

And that's what passes for debate here.

The science is indeed being debated all the time, in the pages of peer-reviewed journals, in the labs at NASA and in universities. In general the best work is done by people without a financial interest in the outcome, and fortunately these people dominate in academic circles. They generally do not agree with the oil company's take on things, and that makes the oil companies very nervous. So they hire people to improve their image. These people specialize in distorting the science, so that a purely scientific argument can be re-cast as a political threat that will kill your grandmother (sorry, different thread) take away your job. Let's not talk about carbon cycles - let's talk SOCIALISM! Let's talk LOSING YOUR JOB TO GREEDY ENVIRONMENTALISTS!

I have a few friends who work at Scripps Oceanographic Institute, and talking to them is quite different than talking to people here. People's outlooks are completely different when their primary goal is understanding what's going on, rather than defending Exxon or making sure "the other side loses." I highly recommend talking to such people; you can learn a lot.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

It's life, professor. I myself will look at the science instead of the proponent.

I don't believe you are qualified to do that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The science is indeed being debated all the time, in the pages of peer-reviewed journals, in the labs at NASA and in universities.

What's the debate, bill? What the hell is the debate? The only debate I'm seeing is how to deal with observations not matching the predictions, and how to minimize the impact of real life on pet theory.

Science - the testing of the predictions of a hypothesis against observed data. This is the basic rule of science.

We are not talking about the scientific method of testing the hypotheses. We are talking about the damned results. Do the observed data match the hypotheses and the predictions that come therefrom?

Climate models are not data. They are hypotheses. They are predictions. Each model is its own prediction. If the prediction matches the observationd then we're good. If the predictions do not match, then we are not good.

A model that fails these tests against reality fails as science. I don't give a shit WHO the hell put forth the hypothesis. Is it michale Mann? James Hansen? Pat Michaels? Tom Karl? I don't care who it is. If the hypothesis matched the observed data then you have a good foundation for proof.

Capice?

Thus, show me a damned model that predicted a ten year lull in global temperature increase.

Show me a model that demonstrates that the data matches (or even comes somewhat close) to what we see here.


Show me a model that doesn't predict a steady linear increase in temperature. There is one - from the Canadian Climate Center, which shows an INCREASING rate of warming.

Show me a model that predicts withing .15 degrees the temperature in 2009 from the observed data.

Can you? if not, take that science you talk about and discard it. The hypothesis is not verified. The data does not match. It is disproven. Next hypothesis.

We should have see .2 degrees C mean temperature increase, under the "consensus" models showing a LINEAR 2.0 degree per century increase. Yes, the MODELS (except the Canadian model) show lineaar increase.

Show me a model that predicted the data we see. Then let us use THAT model to see what it says - if any of the consensus, settled science, 5 degree C science got it right.


They didn't, bill.

This is no different from a religious nut predictinh the second coming of Jesus yesterday - and he didn't show. Yes, he msade a mistake. Just wait - Jesus will be here next month. And then you'll know the truth.

Give it up, bill.


Get to the damned science. Be a scientist. Anything else means a different agenda.

No model has been accurate. Ten years of data prove the hypothese wrong.

Goodbye to consensus science. Hello to the scientific method of testing hypotheses.

Sure, it sucks for the AGW crowd. Time to stand up for the scientific method once again.

"Long term trends" is a way of saying "I will ignore any contrary evidence." Bill - I have always respected your reason. Show me that science actually matters to you and admit that these hypotheses have been disproven.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rhys 0]

Our atmoshphere is not very thick, as skydivers we should be some of the first to realise how little atmosphere we have to breath.

As a reminder, listen to Kittengers words as he decribes his descent through earths atmosphere.

Then ask yourself;

Is billowing toxins into our atmosphere without thought a good idea in the long term?

For most of you the answer will probably be along the lines of, 'who cares', but plenty of people do!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rushmc 18]

CO2 is not a toxin

"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

> Despite what you preach and pontificate, energy compaies will continue
> to make money because they will adjust.

Not if you can help it! You've been dead-set against any 'adjustment' from day one; you've been very clear about that. Even called it socialism recently!

But in any case, some energy companies will indeed adjust. Some will be so fossilized in their ways that they will collapse when they cannot adjust. New, smarter companies will form that CAN adjust, and they will make billions.

>I will wear the denier label with pride . . .

Fair enough. I prefer to concentrate on the science than on political denialism - but whatever floats your boat.

the "adjustments" I post about are not the radical unwarrented changes you push.

the company I work for is spending nearly a billion dollars this year retrofitting coal plants to reduce polution. REAT polution!! The CO2 crap is another thing altogether. But you would force social changes through your legislation and draconion CO2 measures. Big difference my friend! Big big difference

"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]

I too have a high level of respect for him on this topic. He is learned on the subject. This thread is putting a lot of stress on that respect

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So still the debate is moved to the evil oil comanies and not to whether there is any real significance to the data provided.

Which, in your opinion, is a more honest debate? Or, does that mater?

You can't sweep away the fact that the 'renowned' scientist is on the payroll. It's that simple.

Sweet - so should we go see how many of the member of the 'consensus' are working for universities or businesses that get AGW grant / carbon credit money?

Attack the data, not the scientist - if you can.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Would this be the same guy that gets $2,500 a DAY to consult for the coal and oil companies?

And the Goreacle gets 200k for a speaking engagement to talk about Glo-bull warming and talk up his carbon credit scam company - did you have a point to make?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Would this be the same guy that gets $2,500 a DAY to consult for the coal and oil companies?

And the Goreacle gets 200k for a speaking engagement to talk about Glo-bull warming and talk up his carbon credit scam company - did you have a point to make?

Money affects credibility - thanks for reinforcing the point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Would this be the same guy that gets $2,500 a DAY to consult for the coal and oil companies?

And the Goreacle gets 200k for a speaking engagement to talk about Glo-bull warming and talk up his carbon credit scam company - did you have a point to make?

Money affects credibility - thanks for reinforcing the point.

Ah, I see.... Lindz getting $2500 to speak against AGW makes him a hack in the pay of the coal and oil companies, but Gore and Hansen getting much more per engagement means they're credible proponents for AGW.

Pull down your toga, Perfessor....your hypocrisy is showing again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Would this be the same guy that gets $2,500 a DAY to consult for the coal and oil companies?

And the Goreacle gets 200k for a speaking engagement to talk about Glo-bull warming and talk up his carbon credit scam company - did you have a point to make?

Money affects credibility - thanks for reinforcing the point.

Ah, I see.... Lindz getting $2500 to speak against AGW makes him a hack in the pay of the coal and oil companies, but Gore and Hansen getting much more per engagement means they're credible proponents for AGW.

Pull down your toga, Perfessor....your hypocrisy is showing again.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. You can't trust the objectivity of anyone who is paid to have an opinion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So still the debate is moved to the evil oil comanies and not to whether there is any real significance to the data provided.

Which, in your opinion, is a more honest debate? Or, does that mater?

You can't sweep away the fact that the 'renowned' scientist is on the payroll. It's that simple.

Sweet - so should we go see how many of the member of the 'consensus' are working for universities or businesses that get AGW grant / carbon credit money?

Attack the data, not the scientist - if you can.

What is "AGW grant money"? Is the atmosphere now funding scientists? How do its grants compare with Exxon-Mobil's budget?

You should cut down on the hot air, it just makes GW worse!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.