Fear and loathing in DC

[rushmc 18]

kallend

You're funny.

Ya
but I will give you some of the credit

you make it easy!

"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]

SkyDekker

Consensus is a desperate attempt to silence the opposition....

Interesting.

Care to pick your own examples of what was believed and there was a consensus in the past? Things we know not to be true today?

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

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Absolutely that happens...consensus can change, and often does.

That doesn't make it a "desperate attempt" though.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Absolutely that happens...consensus can change, and often does.

That doesn't make it a "desperate attempt" though.

Ok
Generally speaking I will give you that point

However, I do not see this as the case with this topic and many on this sight

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

[jgoose71 0]

kallend

***************I see you cherry picked my post. Can you point to a model that has accurately backcasted the global temps so we can see how much of this climate change was actually caused by man?

Can you point to a single model that has accurately backcasted when a smoker would die of cancer or emphysema, and which smoker would die of something else?

Excellent non-answer in both relevance and content...
Au contraire, it just satirizes your incorrect comments on the scientific consensus.

If only satire was scientific consensus, then you may have had a valid point....

When the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled, it's fair to say that there is a consensus. Your opinion is hardly relevant.

I see, so in trying to argue your case, you have yet to come up with a fact, went straight to a non-relevant satirical comparison and then to parroting talking points. Way to think for yourself, question results and not be a sheep.

I will give you that the earth is .19 degrees celsius warmer than it was 30 years ago. I will also give you that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is rising at a rate of 2 parts per million a year since we started recording it.

However, no one has been able to show a link between the two. That is the point. A rise in greenhouse gasses will also cause other shifts in the atmosphere that people have not been able to predict. And is a .000006% increase in CO2 enough to cause a global shift? CO2 is also required for life on this planet. Without it, everything that is green and leafy would die.

I'm borrowing this from someone else. It was in reference to the UN report but it seems to fit:

Quote

Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists “believe”? And when did scientists’ “beliefs” translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming Believers Party?

I'm not saying that there is or isn't man made global warming. I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to decide one way or another.

And to shut down the US economy on a hunch is irresponsible.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[CanuckInUSA 0]

It's May 7th and I still have snow in my yard and the temperatures are below freezing this morning. Oh and this is not isolated to one region. Pretty much all of Western Canada with the exception of the Left Coast is dealing with cooler than normal temperatures.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[jgoose71 0]

Sorry, I was talking about global averages, not necessarily including people caught in the sharknado/polarbearvortex thing....

http://onlyfatrabbit.com/sharknado-vs-polar-vortex-tornados-sharks-polar-bears-grr/

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[lawrocket 3]

quade

a hell of a lot of the population of the planet is going to be pretty screwed over by it within the next century.

That's what they were saying in 1970. About what will happen by the year 2000.

Then in the early 80s, it shifted. To a helluva lot of the population would be screwed by 2000, but for a different reason. By 1990, it was pushed back to 2010.

The fearmongering bullshit is the work of knaves looking for some power and authority. Sorry, Paul, but the boys cried wolf far too often. The just-released national assessment has truly screwed itself by deliberately refusing to acknowledge that climate change actually can happen despite human activity. Climate change is solely linked to human activity in the report, from what I've viewed (no, I have not read all 800 some odd pages). But I did see some extra reports about how ice-free the great lakes are now and will be (meanwhile, there is no human record of there ever being this much ice on the lakes in May).

Check out the "traceable accounts" section. It highlights to total folly of this thing because it does a very good job of pointing out the uncertainties - it is actually does a decent job. And looking at all the uncertainties, the report still gives "very high confidence."

The report is spin. An advocacy piece that actually says more funding is needed and should be provided by the USGCRP. This is the reason why the horrors of more pollen are mentioned (longer growing season, more plants, more food - obviously a benefit by far outweighed by the risk of sneezes).

Scientists have a choice. They can be objective scientists or they can be advocates. Once the latter happens, objectivity is lost. It's the way it goes.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GD64 1]

I can relate as I am near the border and there are piles of snow in the yard with the large lake out front covered in ice. Fishing opener is this weekend and for the second year in a row it's ice fishing or not at all.

Global warming sounds go to me right now.

[billvon 2,400]

>Should I continue?

You're sorta proving my point here. You said that you didn't see much in the report that refers to the "potential" risks of AGW. I showed you some examples that listed the potential risks. Indeed in [your own quote from the report:

"In the short term, some crops will benefit from a longer growing season, but the long-term consequences are uncertain."

That means that in the short term we will see benefits (not risks as you claimed) in in the long term there are _potential_ risks for crops.

That's what the report is. A report on the potential risks of AGW, as the quotes you posted demonstrate.

>this time to you Bill; what do we need to do about it . . . .

Reduce our generation of CO2 and other AGW gases (primarily methane.)

>and what can guarantee the results we desire?

Nothing. Reducing our generation of CO2 will reduce the risk that future changes will cause us harm, but nothing we can do will guarantee a result in the future.

Again compare it to smoking. Let's say you smoke. A doctor says "quitting smoking now will greatly reduce your chances of lung cancer."

You say "but can you GUARANTEE I won't get lung cancer? What do I have to do to guarantee I won't get it?"

Doctor says "there are no guarantees, but the medical consensus is that quitting smoking now will reduce the odds you get it."

What do you do? Since you might get lung cancer anyway, do you ignore his advice?

[billvon 2,400]

>The smoking industry fought the info because?
>It would cost them money

>Same for the Alarmist industry


Uh, no. Tobacco companies feared they would lose money from the medical consensus view that smoking was bad for you. So they hired people to "sow doubt" in the consensus, and propose fake science to muddy the issue. It worked.

The oil companies feared they would lose money from the scientific consensus that our emissions are changing the climate. So they hired people to "sow doubt" in the consensus, and propose fake science to muddy the issue. It also worked.

Same strategies, same companies involved, same people (professional deniers.)

[Amazon 7]

wayneflorida

I'm going to cut my skydiving 70% to help save the planet.
I will do this by not skydiving during the week. Of course I usually don't skydive during the week but that doesn't matter.

I'm so proud of myself. I can do math as well as Congress.

I do need to improve my writing skills. This post should have been 20 screens long.

So are you going to invest in submersible habitats.... being from Florida and all. Your great grandchildren will celebrate your forsight.

[Channman 2]

quade

Some people would ignore the facts all the way to extinction.

The rest of us can see the handwriting on the wall. Not that we're in immediate threat of becoming extinct over this, but a hell of a lot of the population of the planet is going to be pretty screwed over by it within the next century.

Your climate change theory is a combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one as Patrick Moore a PhD in Ecology would say.

"You could learn more about the future by throwing a bunch of bones on the ground" Maybe some of you believers should do just that, throw some bones on the ground and get back with us say in 100 years.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we must act now."

When the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled, it's fair to say that the science is settled.

And yet when 100% of jurors find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person murdered somebody, and all of them - plus a judge - who know far more about the particulars of a case decide that the person should be executed for it, you call it into question. Even if it's made it, say here in Cali, past the trial court, 3 judges on the Appeals court, 7 Supreme Court judges, one or two federal court judges, a three-judge federal appellate panel, 11 justices on the en banc panel, and perhaps another 9 justices in the Supreme Court, who would uphold it.

Nope. That consensus isn't good enough. Maybe there were a couple of justices who disagreed, but a person gets a lethal injection and you disagree with the consensus of those absolutely most knowledgable in the subject.

Why doesn't consensus work for other things? Because the consensus is far too frequently wrong, that's why. Some of us want to look at things independent of whatever bandwagon is going down.

Yep. Regardless of whether a person as a matter of fact killed somebody, as a matter of law that person did if he was convicted. Regardless of the nature and extent of human involvement in climate change, it is becoming a matter of law that humans are the cause of tornadoes, droughts, floods.

The white, male jury has reached its consensus and stated its verdict. And as we all know, the jury is never wrong. Consensus rules, eh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,625]

lawrocket

******It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we must act now."

When the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled, it's fair to say that the science is settled.

And yet when 100% of jurors find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person murdered somebody, and all of them - plus a judge - who know far more about the particulars of a case decide that the person should be executed for it, you call it into question.

When all jurors are experts in the relevant fields of evidence in the case, you may have a point.

However, the average juror is someone like rushmc.

Members of the National Academies, however, are not randomly drawn from the population. I doubt either you or rushmc would qualify.

In fact, your analogy is absolutely bloody stupid, and you know it.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

And you know as well as anyone that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. 100% of logicians agree.

It's the same concept. You just draw lines on which bandwagon you'll question and which one you won't. Which is fine, and you're honest about it.

You dig on argumentum ad populum. It works for you. It's enough. Maybe back in the 1920s you would have lit up some Lucky Strikes because 20,679 physicians said that they were less irritating.

The "Trust doctors for health" was a dupe back then, too. Showing how "appeal to authority" - such as you endorse - has a good-sized history of misuse, and thus is inherently untrustworthy as a fallacy. See "Asch effect." Where people will just go along with something no matter what they can themselves observe.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

> Maybe back in the 1920s you would have lit up some Lucky Strikes because
>20,679 physicians said that they were less irritating.

And back in the 1920's no one worried about climate change, either.

Now it's almost 100 years later. Would it be sane to say that cigarettes are good for you? I'm sure you can find a few doctors that disagree with the consensus.

>The "Trust doctors for health" was a dupe back then, too.

No it wasn't. "Trust cigarette companies" was a dupe, as is "trust the oil companies" or "trust the denial industry." In the 1920's if you went to your average doctor he would not tell you that cigarettes were good for you; even back then, their tendency to cause emphysema was well known, and several medical researchers had published studies showing the lung cancer-tobacco link.

Then, as now, you could get good information by going to a doctor, or by going to a scientist. What you could NOT trust is sales material from tobacco or oil companies intended to promote their products.

[skypuppy 1]

kallend

***It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we must act now."

When the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled, it's fair to say that the science is settled.

when a majority of the citizens and politicians say that slavery is an acceptable practice, it's fair to say that slavery is an acceptable practice...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[quade 3]

skypuppy

******It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we must act now."

When the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled, it's fair to say that the science is settled.

when a majority of the citizens and politicians say that slavery is an acceptable practice, it's fair to say that slavery is an acceptable practice...

Only if you make a horrible false equivalency of opinion and fact.

Fact: The planet is warming.
Fact: Humans contribute to the warming.

Not opinion. Fact.

Opinion is whether a person thinks something should or should not be done about it, but that does not change the facts.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[masterrig 1]

rhaig

***

The rest of us can see the handwriting on the wall.

Meaning they won't read the report either

:)

They'll get one of their aides to read it, then, give them the 'Cliff Notes' version so they don't look too stupid when the discussion comes-up.


Chuck

[jgoose71 0]

quade

Fact: Humans contribute to the warming.

Not opinion. Fact.

Not a fact, not even close. Please provide proof other than a "consensus of like minded scientists looking for more money"

No one has been able to make this connection. That is the reason I say the jury is still out.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,400]

>Not a fact, not even close.

Which part of AGW do you disagree with? Here are the facts, broken down further:

-The greenhouse effect causes the Earth to retain heat.
-Increasing CO2 concentrations increases this effect, thus retaining more heat.
-Humans have significantly increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
-The temperature has risen steadily over the long term since we began increasing CO2 concentrations.

Then we can go from there.

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>Not a fact, not even close.

Which part of AGW do you disagree with? Here are the facts, broken down further:

-The greenhouse effect causes the Earth to retain heat.
-Increasing CO2 concentrations increases this effect, thus retaining more heat.
-Humans have significantly increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
-The temperature has risen steadily over the long term since we began increasing CO2 concentrations.

Then we can go from there.

-Green house gasses do cause the earth to retain heat. Heat that adds to the water vapor content of the atmosphere that also blocks solar radiation from reaching the earth surface. This has shown to reverse the effects of global warming. The earth is not a jar with just one force acting upon it.

-CO2 content of the atmosphere is .04% and since we have been taking measurements we have seen an increase of 2 parts per million a year. Is this enough to cause warming?

-The global temps average have risen .19 degrees celsius in the past 30 years and have actually held steady for the last 18. The sea rise of 2.2 mm a year has slowed down or stopped depending on who's numbers you use.

There are counter arguements to every argument. No one has been able to make a accurate model to explain the connections. Right now man made global warming is an assumption.

You know what an assumption is, right?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kallend 1,625]

lawrocket

And you know as well as anyone that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. 100% of logicians agree.

The National Academies are not "Ad populam". Rest of your rant irrelevant.

Maybe you should do some research on the qualifications for membership, since you appear to confuse them with randomly chosen juries.

You assume that all opinions are equally valid. Well, I have news for you, they aren't.

If you start peeing blood, do you consult a physician or a random passer by in the street? If your car develops a strange sound and shakes when you apply the brakes do you consult a mechanic or a random passer by in the street? If you are arrested do you ask for a lawyer or some random passer by in the street? Yet if you have a question about science apparently you'd believe lawyers and politicians and rushmc rather than scientists.

...

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

[kallend 1,625]

skypuppy

******It is fear mongering when we have politicians saying "The science is settled, we must act now."

When the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled, it's fair to say that the science is settled.

when a majority of the citizens and politicians say that slavery is an acceptable practice, it's fair to say that slavery is an acceptable practice...

Apparently you are as clueless as lawrocket about the National Academies. They do not in any way represent a majority of citizens or politicians.

...

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