RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Media and Global Warming, cont.

Posted by: Madman
- [29246911] Tue, Jun 12, 15:56

This is continued from the Bush breaking campaign promises thread because I'm tired of loading that huge thread. Sorry.

"Until the scientific uncertainty associated with greenhouse effect and its impacts can be reduced, it is rational for China to focus first on a "no regrets" policy for Greenhouse Gas reduction; that is, those policies or projects that make sense for economic, social, or environmental reasons other than greenhouse gas reduction. A no-regrets policy is particularly important for low-income countries, where there are many other urgent developmental needs and environmental concerns."
- China: Issues and Options in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Summary Report, 1994.

Compare that above statement to the New York Times today:

NYT on Kyoto

The NYT on China: "China, for instance, has managed to reduce its emissions significantly in the last few years, and it argues that the United States has done comparatively little."

Now, I don't know for sure that this NYT statement is false, but it sure smells to high heaven.

Further, Vaclav Smil (Global Ecology: Environmental Change and Social Flexibility, pp.175-6) when discussing China proclaims that "The combination of large absolute population increases, and the necessities of feeding huge populations and supplying quantities of fossil fuels and electricity in order to energize the much needed modernization will lead inexorably to higher emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O ... "

Indeed, the department of energy released a report that detailed how dramatically China's consumption of oil and other fossil fuels has increased over the last decade.

Does anyone know if the NYT could actually be reporting a factually correct statement here (implausible though it might be)? And if they are factually accurate, HOW???? It would appear that China has found the secret nirvana -- reduce greenhouse gases while increasing fossil fuel consumption and refusing to make serious cuts in emissions.

Pretty cool trick. And if it wasn't for the NYT, how many of you would have known that Kyoto was a red herring? We should all be doing what the Chinese are doing, obviously.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
103Perm Dude
      ID: 3101888
      Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 23:58
In a decade or two? Gore's book came out 15 years ago, and the evidence since then has been far more that Gore was right in 1992 than we've been "duped."

Frankly, I'm disappointed that a piece about such an obvious "scam" doesn't have more teeth in the argument. All we get are a bunch of his beliefs and wishes about something he doesn't think is something "you believe in."
104Baldwin
      ID: 551045819
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 00:11
I think you actually try and follow the exact sheep hoofprints like you were avoiding landmines.
105Baldwin
      ID: 551045819
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 00:18
If you worshipped as a Catholic as faithfully as you grovel to the PC god, my what a Catholic you'd make.
106Perm Dude
      ID: 3101888
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 00:31
Without facts to back up your beliefs, how quickly you resort to personal attacks. Nothing left in your argument quiver anymore?

Try chewing on this one. Come on back when you have something to say about the post and not the poster.
107Baldwin
      ID: 551045819
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 04:14
The only 'feelings' John Coleman wrote about were of those true believers such as your own.

His writing was all about true science divorced from feelings.

More from the full version of his comments...
I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.
108sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 11:22
What if:

1) Al Gore and company are right?

2 options really.

(a) We act on their concerns or

(b) we dont act on their concerns.

1(a) and all is well (hopefully)
1(b) as Jackie Gleason said in the "Smokey and the Bandit" movires...'you in a heap a trouble now boy..."

OK, what if:

2. Al Gore and co are wrong?

Again, 2 real options:

2(a) we act on their concerns and all is well or
2(b) we dont act on their concerns, and all is well.


The only choice which provides for the potentiality of "all is well", regardless of all other acts of either action or dismissal, is that of
(a) we act on thier concerns.

Not acting, means either all is well, or we're in a world of hurt.

Not sure about you folks, but I'm not ready to go "all in" while holding a hand I havent seen yet.
109Perm Dude
      ID: 10105498
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 11:40
I don't think at this point you'll change Baldwin's mind, sarge. At this point it really is just a matter of how we treat each other in the meantime.
110sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 11:44
Oh I know PD. Thats a given. I guess I'm just looking at it as;

(1) Whats the wrost case scenario in either event?

and

(2) What do we stand do gain/lose?

Like racing a train to the crossing. If you win, you cut 5 minutes off your transit time. If you lose, you die. Obviously, its not worth it to make the race, when you look at what you stand to "win" vs what you stand to lose. Same IMHO, regarding the current environmental debate. What do we stand to "gain" vs what we stand to lose?

Worst case loss if we act? Money. Thats it.
Worst case loss if we dont act? *Insert melodramtatc catastrophic scenario of your choice here*
111Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 12:27
Sarge: I thought I asked a very valid question to you in the 2008 Candidates thread.

Why are you ducking it?
112sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 12:32
wasnt ducking anything. I missed the post with your question in it.
113Baldwin
      ID: 551045819
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 13:47
Not sure about you folks, but I'm not ready to go "all in" while holding a hand I havent seen yet. - Sarge

That is exactly what you are asking the whole world to do. Go "all in", spend countless resources reordering the economy over a fashionable but flawed theory you don't have any reason to believe.
114sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 14:35
Learn to read Baldy. Money, is easily replaced. (Comparatively speaking. Lives on the other hand, are not.)
115Baldwin
      ID: 551045819
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 00:00
Tell it to the Roman Empire.
116Building 7
      ID: 41943112
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 00:20
In the 70's the crisis was global cooling.

What if:

1) The global cooling people are right?

2 options really.

(a) We act on their concerns or

(b) we dont act on their concerns.

1(a) and all is well (hopefully)
1(b) as Jackie Gleason said in the "Smokey and the Bandit" movires...'you in a heap a trouble now boy..."

OK, what if:

2. The global cooling people are wrong?

Again, 2 real options:

2(a) we act on their concerns and all is well or
2(b) we dont act on their concerns, and all is well.


The only choice which provides for the potentiality of "all is well", regardless of all other acts of either action or dismissal, is that of
(a) we act on their global cooling concerns.

Not acting, means either all is well, or we're in a world of hurt.

Not sure about you folks, but I'm not ready to go "all in" while holding a hand I havent seen yet.
117Perm Dude
      ID: 321056923
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 00:56
If you believe, as I do, that science is getting better and better, than looking back at 30-year-old analysis is a sucker's comparison. There is a heck of a lot we got wrong in the 70's--I genuinely don't think you want to set this up as a "70's says, we now say" shrug.
118Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 01:51
I heard the ice is growing on the southern hemisphere, if this is the case, wouldn't a slight change in the axis of the Earth or timing of summer with the elliptical orbit with the sun cause the slight tempature increase in the north?
119weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 02:52
Sarge:

I have read many of your posts and for the most part you seem to offer well thought out opinions.
However, I cant believe you fell for the arguments that the dufus on break.com makes.
You can use his/your arguments for 1000's of real or imagined end of the world crisis':

What if:

1)Scientist have proof that aliens are coming to earth to eat all our children unless we build death rays to defend ourselves at a cost of $100,000 per person.?

2 options really.

(a) We act on their concerns or

(b) we dont act on their concerns.

1(a) and all is well (hopefully)
1(b) as Jackie Gleason said in the "Smokey and the Bandit" movires...'you in a heap a trouble now boy..."

OK, what if:

2.The crisis is a crock?

Again, 2 real options:

2(a) we act on their concerns and all is well or
2(b) we dont act on their concerns, and all is well.


The only choice which provides for the potentiality of "all is well", regardless of all other acts of either action or dismissal, is that of
(a) we act on thier concerns.

Not acting, means either all is well, or we're in a world of hurt.

Everytime a group comes up with a crisis and recommends we spend billions we would have no choice but to spend the money if we used this flawed logic.

Using your logic on crossing the train tracks we would have to draw the conclusion that we should never cross the tracks.
Even if we look both ways and we can see no train coming there could always be a 1 bazillionth of 1% chance that we could get hit and end our life.
Since this is unacceptable we should turn our car around and go home.

120Baldwin
      ID: 551045819
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 05:01
Sarge would also be loathe to apply the same fornula to his decision whether to please God.
121sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Nov 10, 2007, 10:15
re 120: Logical deduction, following extensive personal research, satisfies my criteria re God Baldy.

Re 119: Yes, the method could be applied to almost any circumstance. A little common sense however, prohibits applying it to the ridiculous.

Re the train. No, what the comparison says, is not to turn the car around, but to wait for the train to cross first. In regard to your comment that there is always a billionth of a per cent chance..yes, I suppose this is true. However, in that case, you arent "racing the train" to the crossing. You are already there, and cannot see/hear a train coming. Thus, the comparative is invalid.
122Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 11:54
123Sludge
      ID: 16109168
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 12:08
re 120: Logical deduction, following extensive personal research, satisfies my criteria re God Baldy.

Re 119: Yes, the method could be applied to almost any circumstance. A little common sense however, prohibits applying it to the ridiculous.


I believe sarge needs to read up a bit more on history. Pascal's Wager, which is one of the earlier, if not the earliest, uses of the argument.
124biliruben
      ID: 471081612
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 13:33
I wrote a paper in a college philosophy class on this, as well as other pf Pascal's pensees. I got a C, so I won't attempt to pretend I know more than the wiki author!
125Sludge
      ID: 16109168
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 14:50
Well, the content doesn't so much matter as the fact that Pascal devised this "thought experiment" a long-long time ago to deal with the question: "Should I believe in God?"
126biliruben
      ID: 471081612
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 15:04
Belief in a religion, and solid, upstanding deity, certainly offers many benefits and advantages; not just cosmically and psychologically, but socially.

I have long recognized this.

For many years, I started off all my "to-do" lists with "find a religion."

Alas. No luck so far.
127Perm Dude
      ID: 331041209
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 15:14
Didn't Fr. Guido Sarducci have an SNL skit along the lines of that he was starting a religion, and "Everyone's a pope!"

Maybe that's for you, bili.
128sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 15:38
I'm Familiar with Pascals Wager, and the "why" for believing. However my personal observations carry greater impact with me and thus weigh most heavily in favor of disbelief. Since I find the notion of Heaven/Hell to be absurd, I hold no fear of eternal damnation nor do I hold any longing for eternal salvation. Absent those 2 fundamentals, I have no need for religion.
129Sludge
      ID: 177131910
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 18:44
Then why do you find the argument appropriate for a global warming discussion, but not appropriate in a theological discussion?
130sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 19:02
Because the primary argument against acting, is monetary. Something which can be easily replaced. If economics is your primary reason for arguing against it, and the continuation of the human species is indeed at risk...the argument against is IMHO, not very practical. Nor do I find practical, concern over eternity and my non-existant soul.
131sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 19:04
further..if you're only reason for "believing", is the logic from said excercise...you're not a believer anyway. That would be a fake.
132Sludge
      ID: 177131910
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 19:16
What your beliefs are concerning god, Heaven or Hell, eternal damnation or salvation are irrelevant, sarge. You ask us, in 110, to consider the worst case scenarios.

Worst case loss if we act? Money. Thats it.
Worst case loss if we dont act? *Insert melodramtatc catastrophic scenario of your choice here*


Worst case has nothing to do with your beliefs.

And now you're telling us that you don't have to consider worst case with respect to Pascal's Wager because of a belief?

Pure poppycock.

A little common sense however, prohibits applying it to the ridiculous.

Let's keep in mind here, that the application of this method to the question of a belief in god is not "the ridiculous", especially given that it is the most famous example!

If you're going to throw it at us to argue global warming/climate change (whatever you want to call it), you had damn well be prepared to apply it in other "non-ridiculous" arenas. To do otherwise would be like a scientist saying that he believes in the Scientific Method only when it's convenient for him to believe in it.

You don't get to pick and choose. Either you believe in the argument and are willing to apply it in all "non-ridiculous" arenas or you don't and aren't. Stop trying to have it both ways.
133sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 19:19
Sludge...I apply logic in my decision making. Since I find religion itself to be illogical, there exists no further need for analysis. It fails my first test...logic. Thus, the decision is already made and there exists no choice to determine between. No choices to be made, no need to apply Pascals Wager.
134Sludge
      ID: 177131910
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 19:21
That is laughable, sarge. There is nothing else that can be said about that last post.
135sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 19:23
as ever, I'm glad to humor you.
136Perm Dude
      ID: 331041209
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 19:28
Religion isn't mean to be logical. It is like saying you don't like pizza because of the way it feels.
137sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 19:29
funny you should say that. One of the things I dislike about fish, is the texture.
138Perm Dude
      ID: 331041209
      Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 19:47
If you knew your Christianity you might realize how ironic your comment really is.
139Perm Dude
      ID: 10117218
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 10:59
WaPo getting some backlash for backing a George Will distortion on global warming.
140boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 17:28
It looks like an another example of to wrongs make a right, next time they want to critique someone's mistakes they should not follow them up with there own.
141Perm Dude
      ID: 10117218
      Sat, Feb 21, 2009, 18:32
Especially if the second person's job is to correct mistakes!
142Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 13:24
Oops our bad?

Less Fire, More Ice

Environment: The claim that man's activities are heating the planet was weakened when it was learned that a glitch caused satellites to undermeasure the volume of Arctic ice. Doom has been overdone.

The global warming speculation has more holes in it than Al Gore's oversized carbon footprint has square miles. Deeply infected with statistical and common sense problems, the climate change argument is beginning to crumble. Suddenly what many considered irrefutable evidence has more in common with fables than scientific work:

• The famed hockey stick chart that supposedly shows Earth's temperature rising sharply in response to the industrial age is not an accurate measure of what has actually occurred. This stick, used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to scare the public into believing that human activity is causing the Earth to warm, has been revealed to be in error.

The unmasking happened five years ago when Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick crunched the numbers and uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann used to create the chart.

Mann and his co-researchers also conveniently left the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age out of the temperature chart, a deception, whether intended or not, that renders their entire work unreliable.

• Global temperatures peaked in 1998, a fact that contradicts the assertion that man's continued pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is making the planet hotter. This was not predicted by the climate models that say we're headed for a warm period.

Nor can anthropogenic global warming be explained when introduced into the argument is the fact that 1934, when far fewer carbon-spewing machines existed than we have today, is the hottest year on record.

Global warming alarmists invested heavily in convincing everyone that 1998 was the hottest year and 2006 the third warmest. After correcting for faulty data, NASA had to backtrack.

At the same time NASA made the correction, it also reported that six of the top 10 hottest years are from a period before 90% of the 20th century growth in carbon emissions occurred.

• In 2007, it was learned that the placement of temperature stations across the U.S. had skewed readings. Equipment at a site in Oregon was found to be just 10 feet from an air conditioning exhaust vent. The sensor at another Oregon station is located on a rooftop near an air conditioning unit. A Tahoe, Calif., station is located next to a drum where trash is burned.

A volunteer group has found that 69% of the 807 stations it has rated (of the 1,221 U.S. Historical Climatological Network stations) are located less than 12 yards from an artificial heating source; 11% are located "next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot or concrete surface."

Most interesting is a comparison between two California stations located within 40 miles of each other. The station in Orland is isolated from man-made influences and has recorded falling temperatures since the late 19th century. Meanwhile, the Marysville station, once in a remote area but now surrounded by artificial heat sources, has shown increases in temperatures over a similar period.

• Last week, researchers at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center admitted that from early January to the middle of this month, "sensor drift" in the satellite monitors used to measure sea ice caused them to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles. That's a significant area roughly the size of California.

Will the alarmists and media apologize for spreading fear about shrinking sea ice that was not really shrinking? Not likely. They'll move on to something else to hype. But it won't change the facts on the ground — or in the sea.
143Perm Dude
      ID: 571562410
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 13:29
Will the alarmists and media apologize

Heh, that's all we need to know about the bias of that article.

Just going to throw this out there (it is basic physics): You know that increased energy through atmospheric warming can occur, often in large scale areas, but not be reflected in a rise in average temperatures? [Hint: Sea ice levels]
144boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 14:14
Just going to throw this out there (it is basic physics): You know that increased energy through atmospheric warming can occur, often in large scale areas, but not be reflected in a rise in average temperatures? [Hint: Sea ice levels]

What are you talking about?
145Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Tue, Feb 24, 2009, 14:19
Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick crunched the numbers and uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann used to create the chart.

i'm sure gonna blindly accept the "research" of a minerals consultant; without an advanced degree; and who was exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor," and was also President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc.

and his buddy,

a guy who's degrees are in economics, and has claimed that the number of Endangered Species in the world has been over-reported by nearly four times.

over a man who's career is climatology, and has authored a fairly large number of peer-reviewed journal publications.

and while McKitrick at least as some legs to stand on with his research, by appearances, his pal, appears to be somewhat of a loon.
146Baldwin
      ID: 9123198
      Wed, Feb 25, 2009, 08:08
Is there anyone anywhere who respects Tree's scientific judgement?
147Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Wed, Feb 25, 2009, 09:32
because, of course, this is about me.

i don't have the hubris of ignorance that you do Baldwin. it's about much bigger than any one person.

but, that's not something you're able to grasp. still, it's always fun to see you ignore facts and instead toss blame on something or someone totally unrelated to the issue.
148Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Feb 25, 2009, 09:34
I don't see where Tree has attempted any scientific judgement. I do see an assessment of the relevent credentials these Canadian researchers that is reasonable enough, if perhaps a little shallow.

Of course a displayed inability to discern between the two leads me to question your ability for cogent analysis of such reasoning. But that's not new.
149Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 01:47
It's all about judgement. Of course that means discrimination against weak ideas.

Freeman Dyson, a man the great scientists of the age marvel at, knows hysterical hogwash, aka global warming when he sees it.
150Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 02:28
how on earth can i give any credit to that link? not only is it from the MSM, but it's from a liberal rag like the NY Times.
151Baldwin
      ID: 122332717
      Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 05:01
Since you don't read links don't let that trouble you.
152Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 09:54
just pointing out another of your inconsistencies. you'll blast the msm and the Times, but when you need it as a source...well...typical of you.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours22
Last 7 days44
Last 30 days55
Since Mar 1, 20071398640