PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Scientist Does U-Turn


tuckahoeskin
02-14-2010, 07:48 AM
Phil Jones, the leading scientist at the British CRU admits that there has been no global warming since 1995.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

and a little more icing on the cake.... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

akhhorus
02-14-2010, 10:21 AM
Thats not what he said. From the interview:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

.15C is considered significant change.

And later in the interview:

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.


So, the Daily Mail is misleading their readers about what he said.

Fathead
02-14-2010, 11:10 AM
One scientists undoes the work of thousands of scientists over the last 50 years....not.

tuckahoeskin
02-14-2010, 12:00 PM
One scientists undoes the work of thousands of scientists over the last 50 years....not.

The leading scientist of that unit, not just some scientist. And work of the last 50 years? Does that include those who called for the next ice age in the late 1970's? Give it up. The AGW believers are wrong. Just like the next-ice-age alarmists of the late '70's were wrong.

akhhorus
02-14-2010, 12:09 PM
The leading scientist of that unit, not just some scientist.

Who didn't say what you want to think he said. Thanks for not addressing that btw.

And work of the last 50 years? Does that include those who called for the next ice age in the late 1970's? Give it up. The AGW believers are wrong. Just like the next-ice-age alarmists of the late '70's were wrong.


http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/manns-hockey-stick.gif

Spearfeather
02-14-2010, 12:23 PM
Who didn't say what you want to think he said. Thanks for not addressing that btw.




http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/manns-hockey-stick.gif


Why do the temps suddenly start going up when the thermometers are introduced?

akhhorus
02-14-2010, 12:31 PM
Why do the temps suddenly start going up when the thermometers are introduced?

Not that is relevant at all, but thermometers have been in use since the early 18th century. The red line probably is when they started to be in use for official statistics in the late 19th century(which would make sense since statistics became a growth industry about at that time).

Biggie
02-14-2010, 12:32 PM
Hey, it's cold outside. Global warming is a lie!

tuckahoeskin
02-14-2010, 12:44 PM
Hey, it's cold outside. Global warming is a lie!

And next Summer when it's hit 100 for two days in a row people on the other side of the fence will be clamoring about AGW. The weatherman on your local news will prattle on about it to no end. These snow storms don't prove against, yet have one hurricane next year and it will be "more proof!" It's tails I win, heads you lose.

Biggie
02-14-2010, 12:48 PM
And next Summer when it's hit 100 for two days in a row people on the other side of the fence will be clamoring about AGW. The weatherman on your local news will prattle on about it to no end. These snow storms don't prove against, yet have one hurricane next year and it will be "more proof!" It's tails I win, heads you lose.
Click Me (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264085/february-10-2010/we-re-off-to-see-the-blizzard)

In any case, "global warming" is a misnomer. There's a reason people have started calling it climate change instead, and more extreme weather conditions are part of it.

akhhorus
02-14-2010, 12:49 PM
And next Summer when it's hit 100 for two days in a row people on the other side of the fence will be clamoring about AGW. The weatherman on your local news will prattle on about it to no end. These snow storms don't prove against, yet have one hurricane next year and it will be "more proof!" It's tails I win, heads you lose.

The Global warming scientists don't claim that hurricanes prove anything. There's been hurricanes on the US East coast as long as the trade winds come off of Africa. The science suggests that warming in the seas(which is caused by increased CO2 levels) leads to stronger hurricanes since the warmer the ocean water is, the most moisture the storm can use to feed into it(and thats being seen in the Pacific also). Thats(the warmth of the ocean) why Katrina could hit Miami as a Category 2 storm I believe, then jump into a warm Gulf of Mexico to become a Category 4-5 storm when it hits New Orleans.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/national-climate-change#key5

tuckahoeskin
02-14-2010, 12:55 PM
Check out the video here: http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2010/02/video-shows-democrats-waxing-eloquent.html

Head I win, tails you lose. The "Climate Change" arguments always change. Arguing with Climate Change believers is like sculpting with jello.

akhhorus
02-14-2010, 01:00 PM
Check out the video here: http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2010/02/video-shows-democrats-waxing-eloquent.html

Head I win, tails you lose. The "Climate Change" arguments always change. Arguing with Climate Change believers is like sculpting with jello.

Thanks for being unable to discuss the issue besides just parroting back links.

tuckahoeskin
02-14-2010, 01:11 PM
Thanks for being unable to discuss the issue besides just parroting back links.

Right back at you. This thread is very quickly going to turn into another arguing with Akh thread like many others have had. Quite frankly, I'm not interested. I'm not going to be drawn into that.

Climate goes in cycles. There was a period in the last century with more hurricans than normal -- it was approximately 1910 to 1930 -- then began a period with fewer hurricanes followed by a swing in the opposite direction. The same cycles occured in temperature as well. My contention is that the Earth cycles itself and we are just along for the ride. There is no need for all of the "urgent action" on part of governmental bodies. To me, all of that is just a tool in the greater effort to hinder our freedom and economy.

akhhorus
02-14-2010, 01:22 PM
Right back at you. This thread is very quickly going to turn into another arguing with Akh thread like many others have had. Quite frankly, I'm not interested. I'm not going to be drawn into that.

Don't blame me for your problems. You posted an article that claimed the Phil Jones said that Global Warming hasn't happened since 1995. I posted the interview and what he really said. Rather than just taking your lumps for a single post and admitting that your initial link was wrong, you have decided to try and pretend my post doesn't exist and are just trying to change the subject to different links.

If you want to just push an agenda, go ahead, but if someone points out an obvious problem with what you're posting, thats your problem and not anyone else's. And the fact that you're trying to make me the issue is really pathetic on your part.



Climate goes in cycles. There was a period in the last century with more hurricans than normal -- it was approximately 1910 to 1930 -- then began a period with fewer hurricanes followed by a swing in the opposite direction. The same cycles occured in temperature as well. My contention is that the Earth cycles itself and we are just along for the ride. There is no need for all of the "urgent action" on part of governmental bodies. To me, all of that is just a tool in the greater effort to hinder our freedom and economy.

I agree with you on the cyclical nature of the climate, but the temperature trend is clearly off track since the industrial revolution. And even those most out there environmentalists aren't talking about limiting people's freedoms at all, unless you have some proof of that?

Spearfeather
02-14-2010, 01:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Global cooling documented in last decade
Contradicts data released at Copenhagen climate summit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 08, 2009
10:23 pm Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


The mainstream media is reporting the World Meteorological Organization's assessment of global average temperatures asserting this decade is "the warmest on record," without mentioning the WMO data actually documents the United States and Canada experienced cooler-than-average conditions since 2000.

The reports circulating from the U.N.'s climate summit in Copenhagen also don't mention scientific climate data that suggest the globe has cooled in the last 10 years.

Data from the U.S. National Climate Data Center indicate temperatures in the U.S. have cooled over the last decade at a rate that projects to a decline of 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

akhhorus
02-14-2010, 01:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


The mainstream media is reporting the World Meteorological Organization's assessment of global average temperatures asserting this decade is "the warmest on record," without mentioning the WMO data actually documents the United States and Canada experienced cooler-than-average conditions since 2000.

The reports circulating from the U.N.'s climate summit in Copenhagen also don't mention scientific climate data that suggest the globe has cooled in the last 10 years.

Data from the U.S. National Climate Data Center indicate temperatures in the U.S. have cooled over the last decade at a rate that projects to a decline of 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

Here's the release:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

Great lakes areas was the coolest area(and parts of Russia). But the rest of the world was much warmer than average.

Fathead
02-14-2010, 05:15 PM
Honest question: Has anyone else here actually read the IPCC report?

Ibleedburgundy
02-14-2010, 09:20 PM
Ho boy. Jerome Corsi has been linked lol.

BurgundyNGold
02-15-2010, 07:50 AM
First of all, I believe in global warming and that man is contributing to it. Not the sole cause, but certainly helping it along.

That all said, I find it amusing that the defense of the global warning outlook used by the more prominent scientists during the east coast blizzards has centered around the fact that they predicted more frequent and powerful storms in their data. It's interesting to note that precipitation for the month of February in DC isn't that much above it's average, which would suggest that what the scientists are using as their arguments doesn't really apply. What is also intriguing is that the average high temperature for DC in February 2010 is about 10 degrees cooler than average. So, while these storms would have come on a regular year, they very possibly would have simply been rain storms that dumped 1"-2" of rain each time instead of 1'-2' of snow. The colder temperatures were the difference.

Not that any of this matters in the grand scheme of thing, but it's interesting to watch purported experts and political boneheads both argue around the actual point. The scientists don't exactly do much for their credibility when they advance a non sequitur argument and the politicians show how utterly stupid they are when they not only miss the fundamental fact that global warming has to do with temperature, but they're not using the "evidence" about average high and low temperatures to argue their points. At least then the arguments might rise from the depths of the scurrilous to the relative heights of the specious lol.

Temperature and Precipitation Data for Washington DC, February 2010 (through February 15)

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4168/feb2010temps.png

BurgundyNGold
02-15-2010, 08:50 AM
Here's a chart comparing actual temps with averages by day for Washington DC. As you can see, we're way below average on temps. With temps that are more like Syracuse, NY, it's not a surprise that we're getting the kind of snow associated with Syracuse, NY.

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2276/feb2010tempscht.png

shally
02-15-2010, 12:10 PM
First of all, I believe in global warming and that man is contributing to it. Not the sole cause, but certainly helping it along.

That all said, I find it amusing that the defense of the global warning outlook used by the more prominent scientists during the east coast blizzards has centered around the fact that they predicted more frequent and powerful storms in their data. It's interesting to note that precipitation for the month of February in DC isn't that much above it's average, which would suggest that what the scientists are using as their arguments doesn't really apply. What is also intriguing is that the average high temperature for DC in February 2010 is about 10 degrees cooler than average. So, while these storms would have come on a regular year, they very possibly would have simply been rain storms that dumped 1"-2" of rain each time instead of 1'-2' of snow. The colder temperatures were the difference.

Not that any of this matters in the grand scheme of thing, but it's interesting to watch purported experts and political boneheads both argue around the actual point. The scientists don't exactly do much for their credibility when they advance a non sequitur argument and the politicians show how utterly stupid they are when they not only miss the fundamental fact that global warming has to do with temperature, but they're not using the "evidence" about average high and low temperatures to argue their points. At least then the arguments might rise from the depths of the scurrilous to the relative heights of the specious lol.

Temperature and Precipitation Data for Washington DC, February 2010 (through February 15)

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/4168/feb2010temps.png

whether Global Warming (errrr...Climate Change..kind of reminds me of the way the Washington Bullets are no longer the Bullets because of political correctness) is real or a phony issue, i am not going to go into

but there are several points that are indisputable

1. we need to find clean, renewable energy resources and develop the technology for it.. it is just too big an opportunity to pass on to the chinese

2. adding billions more people who want to go from third world status to first world status is going to put a huge strain on the planet in decades to come

3. i PERSONALLY believe that the agenda of those who consider Global Warming the most pressing of all issues ALSO includes placing the USA under some kind of world authority, to rein in our "destructive" behavior and make us more like the Europeans

4. it doesnt take too many examples of altering data to fit a theory, or problems created that are worse than the original one, to lose the public. the example i am thinking of in the latter case is that all these wonderful "green" lightbulbs that we are screwing into houses everywhere are flourescent units-- and they contain highly toxic mercury compounds that are far far worse for the environment that the incandescent bulbs they are replacing.. what good does it do us to save energy if we are poisoning ourselves in the process ?

by the way, is it just me, or is the lifespan of these "wonder bulbs" getting shorter and shorter ? it seems i am replacing them pretty frequently..
did any of you know, in the old days, around the turn of the century, when you bought a house it had light bulbs that were good for THE LIFE OF THE HOUSE !! G.E. found a way to make the vacuum just imperfect enough so that the bulbs would burn out, thus requiring replacement...:sun:

Fathead
02-15-2010, 12:45 PM
Shally:


http://itodyaso.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tin-foil1.jpg




For the record, I've never had to replace a CFL.

tuckahoeskin
02-15-2010, 12:53 PM
Here's a chart comparing actual temps with averages by day for Washington DC. As you can see, we're way below average on temps. With temps that are more like Syracuse, NY, it's not a surprise that we're getting the kind of snow associated with Syracuse, NY.



Good point relating the temperature and snow totals to Syracuse. Very apt comparison. A few degrees warmer and folks are complaining about a dreary Saturday. With the thermometer where it was, we're still slipping in snow. The real issue, as you pointed out, is that the amount of precipitation is fairly consistent. The snow totals don't point to AGW as some would argue, just as the colder temps don't point toward the next ice age.

tuckahoeskin
02-15-2010, 12:54 PM
Shally:


http://itodyaso.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tin-foil1.jpg




For the record, I've never had to replace a CFL.

Thanks Fathead. Always good to put a face with a post. :Peace: But you could've done a better job on your hat.

shally
02-15-2010, 12:58 PM
Shally:


http://itodyaso.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/tin-foil1.jpg




For the record, I've never had to replace a CFL.

maybe i just buy the wrong kind ???

i wear the tin foil hat proudly !!!

tuckahoeskin
02-15-2010, 01:08 PM
maybe i just buy the wrong kind ???

i wear the tin foil hat proudly !!!

You are nowhere near tin foil hat territory if you think some companies dumb down their quality to improve future sales. Unfortunately, it's true. Now, if you had claims about the ol' engine running on water thingy...

Fathead
02-15-2010, 01:12 PM
I was referring to #3, specifically.




And only someone who doesn't understand climate science would point to this year and the snowfall and say its proof of AGW.

akhhorus
02-15-2010, 01:15 PM
I think everyone can agree that there are plenty of other reasons to switch over to more green energy sources, from reducing our use of foreign oil to public health to taking the high ground in the next economic boom.

Fathead
02-15-2010, 01:17 PM
I think everyone can agree that there are plenty of other reasons to switch over to more green energy sources, from reducing our use of foreign oil to public health to taking the high ground in the next economic boom.

This is true.

shally
02-15-2010, 01:28 PM
I think everyone can agree that there are plenty of other reasons to switch over to more green energy sources, from reducing our use of foreign oil to public health to taking the high ground in the next economic boom.

above all else, there is a TON of money to be made at the cutting edge of this technology..Thomas Friedman has been pounding away at this issue in his columns for the NYT for some time now

shally
02-15-2010, 01:35 PM
I was referring to #3, specifically.




And only someone who doesn't understand climate science would point to this year and the snowfall and say its proof of AGW.

not making it an issue strictly about Global Warming, but there is definitely a component of the Left idiologically that yearns for the day when we are under
the control of Old Europe and it's Social Democrats.. only then will we be truly "civilized."

by the way, Krugman has an interesting column in www.newyorktimes.com today in which he explains why Spain is in for a terrible period of deflation because they are tied to the Euro, and thus unable to re value their currency.
same problem with Greece that is compounded by their economic stupidity coming home to roost..

having one Europe has some advantages in terms of travel, but not all countries are created alike economically

Fathead
02-15-2010, 01:42 PM
not making it an issue strictly about Global Warming, but there is definitely a component of the Left idiologically that yearns for the day when we are under
the control of Old Europe and it's Social Democrats.. only then will we be truly "civilized."


Just like there is a component of the right that yearns for the day we have a 4th Reich.

shally
02-15-2010, 01:52 PM
Just like there is a component of the right that yearns for the day we have a 4th Reich.

i agree.. and those ba****ds scare the hell out of me..

problem is that both parties have lost their holds on the center and are too cowed by the extremes.. besides, Big Business-Finance-Corporations own both parties anyway. the recent SOCUS decision on campaign money could go down along with the Dred Scott decision as one of the worst in the history of this nation.
WTF were they thinking ?????

(my bad.. sorry didnt mean to hijack the thread..slow day..lol)

akhhorus
02-15-2010, 02:21 PM
not making it an issue strictly about Global Warming, but there is definitely a component of the Left idiologically that yearns for the day when we are under
the control of Old Europe and it's Social Democrats.. only then will we be truly "civilized."

I seriously doubt that Shally. Maybe some of the far fringe that even the liberals won't listen to, but the mainstream left doesn't even hint at that in their rhetoric.

Keino
02-15-2010, 02:44 PM
You are nowhere near tin foil hat territory if you think some companies dumb down their quality to improve future sales. Unfortunately, it's true. Now, if you had claims about the ol' engine running on water thingy...

The marketing term for that is "Planned obsolescence". Intentionally mass producing items that are or will very quickly become obsolete so that you have a self sustaining market. It's a step below monopolies, but it is a big reason why quality has taken a serious nose dive when it comes to manufactured products.

shally
02-15-2010, 03:14 PM
The marketing term for that is "Planned obsolescence". Intentionally mass producing items that are or will very quickly become obsolete so that you have a self sustaining market. It's a step below monopolies, but it is a big reason why quality has taken a serious nose dive when it comes to manufactured products.

+1

absolutely correct..the necessity to buy the product again and again is built right into it

shally
02-15-2010, 03:25 PM
I seriously doubt that Shally. Maybe some of the far fringe that even the liberals won't listen to, but the mainstream left doesn't even at that in their rhetoric.

it might not be in their rhetoric, but i believe it is in their hearts.. if not europe, certainly Canada as a role model for the place of government in people's lives..

frankly, i have no problem with people if that is what they truly want.. we are talking philosophy of government here, and the US has changed in so many ways from the nation it was in the 1800's.. it is patently ridiculous for anyone to claim they know what the Founding Fathers would want and to use that as a bulwark for any kind of argument today.

we simply need to figure out what kind of nation we want to be and move in that direction. we either want a government that takes over more of our lives and provides benefits in exchange for that OR we want one that does less, takes less, and let's people fend for themselves while accepting that bad things are going to happen to a percentage of the population.. we obviously have some features of both and which way we move is pushed by the results of each national election and the leadership it brings in.

we are not talking dictatorship of the left or the right here, but different models of government

akhhorus
02-15-2010, 03:55 PM
it might not be in their rhetoric, but i believe it is in their hearts.. if not europe, certainly Canada as a role model for the place of government in people's lives..


Eh..maybe the far left, but the perceived/real intrusions in personal lives has been going on regardless of the party in power.

frankly, i have no problem with people if that is what they truly want.. we are talking philosophy of government here, and the US has changed in so many ways from the nation it was in the 1800's.. it is patently ridiculous for anyone to claim they know what the Founding Fathers would want and to use that as a bulwark for any kind of argument today.


Well, the Founders set up a system that could be changed by future generations. I think thats what they wanted.

we simply need to figure out what kind of nation we want to be and move in that direction. we either want a government that takes over more of our lives and provides benefits in exchange for that OR we want one that does less, takes less, and let's people fend for themselves while accepting that bad things are going to happen to a percentage of the population.. we obviously have some features of both and which way we move is pushed by the results of each national election and the leadership it brings in.

we are not talking dictatorship of the left or the right here, but different models of government

I know what you're saying, I just think that both parties want the same thing visa-via their role in individual lives.

Ibleedburgundy
02-15-2010, 05:18 PM
Talking about individual winters in Washington DC strikes me as rather anecdotal in a discussion about global warming.

Keino
02-15-2010, 05:35 PM
+1

absolutely correct..the necessity to buy the product again and again is built right into it

It's brilliant. The problem is what it has done to companies like Ford. When Ford first started mass producing, it was the #1 product in terms of quality. It got to the point that Ford began to sacrifice quality because it's name was so branded into the american consumer consciousness. Then Japanese automakers, namely toyota and honda began enhancing their vehicles, making them safer and more fuel effecient and the result is that the average American would drive a 5 year old honda/toyota before a brand new Ford.

Maybe the auto-industry was a bad example to use here, but I am sure you get the point. There was a time, when it was the best product that we offered. American consumers bought American because it was simply the best product. I think planned obsolescence as a business model has impacted this greatly. While creating a self-sustaining market, Americna industries have sacrificed creating the superior product and that is was ultimately gets you ahead.

Sorry for the off topic tangent. I just thought it was relevant to some of the earlier points made in the thread.

Fathead
02-15-2010, 06:01 PM
Talking about individual winters in Washington DC strikes me as rather anecdotal in a discussion about global warming.




Wait, you mean that I can't say there is no recession just because I got a raise?

CNYSkinFan
02-15-2010, 07:05 PM
Here's a chart comparing actual temps with averages by day for Washington DC. As you can see, we're way below average on temps. With temps that are more like Syracuse, NY, it's not a surprise that we're getting the kind of snow associated with Syracuse, NY.

welcome to every winter here in Syracuse bitches lol

Death_Venom
02-15-2010, 07:15 PM
Getting back on topic my only question in regards to Globa Warming is:
Has anyone proven that cause of it is man? Or is it just a naturally cycle that we are witnessing? ( I think someone else posted something about it being "cyclic".)

Keino
02-15-2010, 07:23 PM
Getting back on topic my only question in regards to Globa Warming is:
Has anyone proven that cause of it is man? Or is it just a naturally cycle that we are witnessing? ( I think someone else posted something about it being "cyclic".)

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think some of this is natural cycles, and some of it has been caused by man's activities, in particular since the Industrial revolution.

Fathead
02-15-2010, 07:28 PM
Getting back on topic my only question in regards to Globa Warming is:
Has anyone proven that cause of it is man? Or is it just a naturally cycle that we are witnessing? ( I think someone else posted something about it being "cyclic".)

Yes.

Death_Venom
02-15-2010, 07:46 PM
Yes.

A rather simplistic answer. The obvious response is that man has been on earth a rather brief period of time. And only in the last 100 years (give or take) have we actually taken accurate readings of the temperature. Preivous to that I have no knowledge of anyone keeping accurate or reliable records of the weather or temperatures.

Fathead
02-15-2010, 07:50 PM
Preivous to that I have no knowledge of anyone keeping accurate or reliable records of the weather or temperatures.



Rocks, trees, and ice all tell us global climate patterns that are quite reliable for global warming and cooling patterns, and do so for most of the Phanerozoic. I suggest reading some of the texts on the subject.

Keino
02-15-2010, 08:11 PM
A rather simplistic answer. The obvious response is that man has been on earth a rather brief period of time. And only in the last 100 years (give or take) have we actually taken accurate readings of the temperature. Preivous to that I have no knowledge of anyone keeping accurate or reliable records of the weather or temperatures.

Actually it was a nuanced answer. You presented an either/or to which he answered yes, essentially saying what I said when I answered....the concepts are not mutually exclusive.

shally
02-15-2010, 08:17 PM
It's brilliant. The problem is what it has done to companies like Ford. When Ford first started mass producing, it was the #1 product in terms of quality. It got to the point that Ford began to sacrifice quality because it's name was so branded into the american consumer consciousness. Then Japanese automakers, namely toyota and honda began enhancing their vehicles, making them safer and more fuel effecient and the result is that the average American would drive a 5 year old honda/toyota before a brand new Ford.

Maybe the auto-industry was a bad example to use here, but I am sure you get the point. There was a time, when it was the best product that we offered. American consumers bought American because it was simply the best product. I think planned obsolescence as a business model has impacted this greatly. While creating a self-sustaining market, Americna industries have sacrificed creating the superior product and that is was ultimately gets you ahead.

Sorry for the off topic tangent. I just thought it was relevant to some of the earlier points made in the thread.

i dont think that Henry Ford envisioned the auto as a something disposable
after a few short years. when they first came out, the cost represented an enormous investment for a family.. even till WW2 it was rare for a family to have a second car. most didnt even have one !!

when i grew up in the 50's our family had one car.. a Buick (yeah, i know, we HAD to retire the mule and buggy.. go on a laugh you whipper-snappers..lol).
it was the mid 60's before we had a second

my kids each had a car that I bought them when they went away to college.. my how things have changed..

Japan went from making junk product to the highest quality products.. that is why it is such a huge black eye for Toyota..

shally
02-15-2010, 08:19 PM
A rather simplistic answer. The obvious response is that man has been on earth a rather brief period of time. And only in the last 100 years (give or take) have we actually taken accurate readings of the temperature. Preivous to that I have no knowledge of anyone keeping accurate or reliable records of the weather or temperatures.

even without measurements, the air quality in places like England has improved tremendously since the late 1800's and the "pea souper fogs"

the amount of particulates in the atmosphere then was insane

Keino
02-15-2010, 08:20 PM
i dont think that Henry Ford envisioned the auto as a something disposable
after a few short years. when they first came out, the cost represented an enormous investment for a family.. even till WW2 it was rare for a family to have a second car. most didnt even have one !!

when i grew up in the 50's our family had one car.. a Buick (yeah, i know, we HAD to retire the mule and buggy.. go on a laugh you whipper-snappers..lol).
it was the mid 60's before we had a second

my kids each had a car that I bought them when they went away to college.. my how things have changed..

Japan went from making junk product to the highest quality products.. that is why it is such a huge black eye for Toyota..

Yea, that's exactly why I thought my example wasn't all that good. But Ford was the first name that struck me as being the one time world leader in terms of its quality and now it is largely associated with junk. But as you mentioned, a car was a huge investment in the 50s. Now a car is almost necessary.

akhhorus
02-15-2010, 08:28 PM
A rather simplistic answer. The obvious response is that man has been on earth a rather brief period of time. And only in the last 100 years (give or take) have we actually taken accurate readings of the temperature. Preivous to that I have no knowledge of anyone keeping accurate or reliable records of the weather or temperatures.

We have data from tree rings(and other sources). It has been usually cyclical, but I posted a graph of the temp data: its WAY off the cycle.

RedskinsDave
02-15-2010, 08:36 PM
Tree rings are a pretty weak metric.

There are limitations to this research though. Trees in the temperate zone only record the growing season, so the winter season, no matter how dramatic, will not be seen in the ring record. Interestingly, trees in tropical regions grow year round and therefore show no real obvious annual growth rings. Therefore climate data from equatorial areas is difficult to piece out and use. The record is limited geographically in another way too. Trees do not grow in all places on Earth, therefore we don’t have a tree ring record of climate change for each region and ecologic niche globally. (No trees in polar regions, high in the mountains, in the ocean!!!)

akhhorus
02-15-2010, 08:41 PM
Tree rings are a pretty weak metric.

Thats only one part of it, ice cores also(measuring co2 levels are tough with those, but you can tell the temp with them).

shally
02-15-2010, 09:00 PM
Yea, that's exactly why I thought my example wasn't all that good. But Ford was the first name that struck me as being the one time world leader in terms of its quality and now it is largely associated with junk. But as you mentioned, a car was a huge investment in the 50s. Now a car is almost necessary.

Even L.A. had a streetcar system back then..Pacific Power bought it up and dismantled it.. most larger cities had mass transportation, even if it was sadly segregated.. you simply cannot walk around a lot of cities.. we were in Vegas recently and you take your life in your hands if you try to walk.. Dallas, LA, Phoenix.. all the same

Portland is the exception.. they have great mass transit..

tuckahoeskin
02-15-2010, 09:04 PM
Just like there is a component of the right that yearns for the day we have a 4th Reich.

Nazis were Socialists. They were to the right of communists, but not on the right of the political spectrum.

akhhorus
02-15-2010, 09:10 PM
Nazis were Socialists. They were to the right of communists, but not on the right of the political spectrum.

The Nazis were racially-based totalitarians, they didn't fit anywhere on the political spectrum. Which is why they had extremely contradictory political philosophical positions(like alternating between doing everything they could to bolster some corporations and nationalizing those who's owners didn't support them along with believing that government should stay out of people's lives, except when it came to voting and racial composition of society).

tuckahoeskin
02-15-2010, 10:06 PM
The Nazis were racially-based totalitarians, they didn't fit anywhere on the political spectrum. Which is why they had extremely contradictory political philosophical positions(like alternating between doing everything they could to bolster some corporations and nationalizing those who's owners didn't support them along with believing that government should stay out of people's lives, except when it came to voting and racial composition of society).

No, they fit on the political spectrum. It was to the immediate right of the communists. They didn't come to power championing a war policy. It was through social programs that were a pillar of their platform. The Nazis championed strict anti-smoking policies as well as generous social welfare programs -- including healthcare. They certainly DID NOT believe government should stay out of peoples lives. To say so is wholly incorrect.

They were men of the left. They borrowed and shared many ideas and positions with the early Progressives. Including the belief in eugenics which was the genesis of their idea that ultimately became the holocaust. This came from American Progressives like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. They were leftists.

akhhorus
02-15-2010, 10:33 PM
No, they fit on the political spectrum. It was to the immediate right of the communists.

No, thats totally wrong. The Communists didn't believe in private property at all(which is the basis of communism), the Nazis did. Thats a pretty big demarcation between the two considering that communist philosophy is totally based on that principal. You're confusing the Nazi's totalitarian laws with some sort of ultra-leftism, but totalitarian governments aren't on the left/right scale.

And it was the big industrial leaders of Germany who pushed Hindenberg to put Hitler in power even without the Nazis winning enough votes because they saw him as a guy who would help them out financially.

They didn't come to power championing a war policy.

Also very wrong. Please go read Mein Kampf and then you can come back and apologize for your factual error here. The Nazis also campaigned on 3 pillars: fighting communists(which Hitler outlined in Mein Kampf about attacking the Russians directly and framed the communists for the Reichstag fire), fixing unemployment and racial purity.

It was through social programs that were a pillar of their platform. The Nazis championed strict anti-smoking policies as well as generous social welfare programs -- including healthcare.

So, by this definition, who exactly is on the "right" in the United States? Even the far right in this country isn't pushing to get rid of our social welfare programs or our single payer health care program(Medicare) or anti-smoking programs. Quite the opposite actually.

They certainly DID NOT believe government should stay out of peoples lives. To say so is wholly incorrect.


They were a totalitarian government, they believe that they had to control everyone's lives, that doesn't make them left or right, but totalitarian.

They were men of the left. They borrowed and shared many ideas and positions with the early Progressives. Including the belief in eugenics which was the genesis of their idea that ultimately became the holocaust. This came from American Progressives like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. They were leftists.

This is a violation of Godwin's law lol. Sanger didn't advocate mass murder like the Nazis did and linking Planned Parenthood with the Nazis is hilarious political hackery. The Sanger archive covers this slander pretty well: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.html

Death_Venom
02-15-2010, 11:19 PM
Rocks, trees, and ice all tell us global climate patterns that are quite reliable for global warming and cooling patterns, and do so for most of the Phanerozoic. I suggest reading some of the texts on the subject.

When I have some spare time I will look further into it. Currently I am working the "vampire" shift-between family obligations and working hours time is quite precious.

BurgundyNGold
02-16-2010, 12:43 AM
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think some of this is natural cycles, and some of it has been caused by man's activities, in particular since the Industrial revolution.
This is what I think. There are other factors that point to a natural warming trend, but the rate at which the trend is happening and the matching overlay of the ever increasing amouts of carbon in the atmosphere tend to indict humanity as an accelerant.

Fathead
02-16-2010, 01:41 AM
This is what I think. There are other factors that point to a natural warming trend, but the rate at which the trend is happening and the matching overlay of the ever increasing amouts of carbon in the atmosphere tend to indict humanity as an accelerant.

The planet has been in a warming trend since the end of the last ice age. Its the rate at which it is warming currently that is concerning.

tuckahoeskin
02-16-2010, 04:32 AM
No, thats totally wrong. The Communists didn't believe in private property at all(which is the basis of communism), the Nazis did. Thats a pretty big demarcation between the two considering that communist philosophy is totally based on that principal. You're confusing the Nazi's totalitarian laws with some sort of ultra-leftism, but totalitarian governments aren't on the left/right scale.

And it was the big industrial leaders of Germany who pushed Hindenberg to put Hitler in power even without the Nazis winning enough votes because they saw him as a guy who would help them out financially.



Also very wrong. Please go read Mein Kampf and then you can come back and apologize for your factual error here. The Nazis also campaigned on 3 pillars: fighting communists(which Hitler outlined in Mein Kampf about attacking the Russians directly and framed the communists for the Reichstag fire), fixing unemployment and racial purity.



So, by this definition, who exactly is on the "right" in the United States? Even the far right in this country isn't pushing to get rid of our social welfare programs or our single payer health care program(Medicare) or anti-smoking programs. Quite the opposite actually.



They were a totalitarian government, they believe that they had to control everyone's lives, that doesn't make them left or right, but totalitarian.



This is a violation of Godwin's law lol. Sanger didn't advocate mass murder like the Nazis did and linking Planned Parenthood with the Nazis is hilarious political hackery. The Sanger archive covers this slander pretty well: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.html



Go read Liberal Fascism. It spells it all out rather well. I would trust Jonah Goldberg's work to yours any day.

I didn't say the Nazi's were at the same point on the political scale as the communists. I said they were to the right of them, but still leftists. Don't try to twist what I said into something it's not.

Yes, Hitler had support from Big Industrialists. They thought he could advance their prospects. Hitler, however, used them by not sharing his entire plan. Yes, he laid out a significant portion in Mein Kampf, and shame on the industrialsts, as well as every German citizen at the time, who didn't believe he would follow through on his words. That doesn't have anything to do with where the Nazis were on the political scale. Big business got in bed with the Nazis to further their own interests. Big business supports left causes in our time to do the same -- see General Electric. Your position that Hitler was supported by business so therefore he was on the right in woefully incorrect.

The Nazis did promote generous social welfare programs. Their health care and jobs programs were admired by the political left in this country and others at the time.

As for Margaret Sanger, she did advocate for eugenics and the use of abortion as a form of population control. Regardless of the attempt to whitewash her record, that is the fact.

Apologize? Hardly. I've no reason to as what I've written is correct.

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 08:00 AM
Go read Liberal Fascism. It spells it all out rather well. I would trust Jonah Goldberg's work to yours any day.

Goldberg's blogging is pretty solid, but his book was a logical mess. I started laughing when he tried to claim that one of the links between fascism and liberals was Himmler's criticism of Christians persecuting witches in the middle ages and modern Wicca members today.

I didn't say the Nazi's were at the same point on the political scale as the communists. I said they were to the right of them, but still leftists. Don't try to twist what I said into something it's not.

I didn't twist anything you said. You said that the Nazis were to the immediate right of the Communists, which is absurd on the face of it.

Yes, Hitler had support from Big Industrialists. They thought he could advance their prospects. Hitler, however, used them by not sharing his entire plan. Yes, he laid out a significant portion in Mein Kampf, and shame on the industrialsts, as well as every German citizen at the time, who didn't believe he would follow through on his words. That doesn't have anything to do with where the Nazis were on the political scale. Big business got in bed with the Nazis to further their own interests. Big business supports left causes in our time to do the same -- see General Electric. Your position that Hitler was supported by business so therefore he was on the right in woefully incorrect.


If the industrialists thought he was a far leftist(or that the Nazis would be far leftists), they wouldn't have supported him(which is why they did support, because they knew from Mein Kampf that he would attack the communists and the leftist elements of Weimar German political society).

The Nazis did promote generous social welfare programs.

So, George W Bush is a leftist then for the Medicare Part D program.

Their health care and jobs programs were admired by the political left in this country and others at the time.


Thanks for another non-sequitur and another dodge from the issue at hand. And feel free to show proof of this claim, or will this be like that supposed Obama video you said you could find?

As for Margaret Sanger, she did advocate for eugenics and the use of abortion as a form of population control.

So when Sanger said that she opposed the use of abortion and called it a "disgrace to civilization": (link) (http://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html), she was just pulling the double serbian bluff?

I realize that you're just a political hack who's willing to make himself look ridiculous to try and slam anything you disagree with, but do some basic factchecking please. Thats 2 times in this very thread when you were totally wrong about what someone said.

And I can't find Sanger advocating eugenics at all before the Nazis took power(the absolute earliest I can find is 1932), so your hinting that she inspired the Nazis(nevermind that German racialists had been pushing what became the Nazi racial policies for decades inside Germany were the true inspiration for the Nazis) is another factual error.

Regardless of the attempt to whitewash her record, that is the fact.


Except that she advocated for the complete opposite, so there's no whitewashing happening.

Apologize? Hardly. I've no reason to as what I've written is correct.

You didn't actually address the point I brought up where I joked that you should come back and apologize for, so your attempt here is comical.

tuckahoeskin
02-16-2010, 08:41 AM
Akh,

I have argued points without getting personal. As I said previously, I trust Jonah Goldberg's opinion over yours. He's written a very well thought out, detailed book, and defended it successfully against those who disagree with its arguments. You...have a blog....a football blog. Yep.

You have done what you always do, what many others have witnessed you doing many times, you skirt the point and argue the edge. I'm done arguing with you. That's not because I don't feel my arguments aren't strong enough to win the debate, but because it's not worth debating with you. There are others on this board who I may disagree with, that's natural, but we can discuss and argue points. If we see things differently, we can call it a day and find places where we agree on other issues. With you it's different, though. You need to learn that you don't always have to prove that your piss smells stronger than the other guy's. That's a time wasting activity. Quite frankly, I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit hole into oblivion.

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 10:14 AM
Akh,

I have argued points without getting personal. As I said previously, I trust Jonah Goldberg's opinion over yours. He's written a very well thought out, detailed book, and defended it successfully against those who disagree with its arguments. You...have a blog....a football blog. Yep.

I can find plenty of authors and reviews from both sides of the political spectrum who ripped apart Goldberg's book and the problems with it. But you've resorted to trying to make me the issue since you have nothing else apparently. How about discussing the point I brought up? Or could you not find some blog to tell you what to say?

You have done what you always do, what many others have witnessed you doing many times, you skirt the point and argue the edge. I'm done arguing with you. That's not because I don't feel my arguments aren't strong enough to win the debate, but because it's not worth debating with you. There are others on this board who I may disagree with, that's natural, but we can discuss and argue points. If we see things differently, we can call it a day and find places where we agree on other issues. With you it's different, though. You need to learn that you don't always have to prove that your piss smells stronger than the other guy's. That's a time wasting activity. Quite frankly, I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit hole into oblivion.

This is really sad and pathetic on your part. You state your opinion(or just post someone else's opinion) like Phil Jones's supposed admission that there's no global warming or Sanger's opinion on abortion or that the Nazis were linked to leftist beliefs/groups in America, I point out a logical problem with those opinions or show primary source evidence contradicting your points, but instead of just admitting your post was in error, you throw a temper tantrum about me. Sad.


This has nothing to do with me, this is about that you can't stand that someone will dare to call your crap out for what it is. And if it really wasn't about not getting into long debates with me, you wouldn't have gotten into a debate with me, so you can stop bullsh*tting about that.

skins4life24
02-16-2010, 11:38 AM
First of all, I believe in global warming and that man is contributing to it. Not the sole cause, but certainly helping it along.



The human races contribution to global warming is such a small percentage if a viable cause at all. The earth itself is unremarkably stable in its own right. For example a single volcanic eruption from the earth itself will put more components in the atmosphere than 10 nuclear bombs. The earth regulated itself long before we got here and will continue to do so long after we are gone. It is too big a force for humans to make a dent.

Fathead
02-16-2010, 11:47 AM
The human races contribution to global warming is such a small percentage if a viable cause at all. The earth itself is unremarkably stable in its own right. For example a single volcanic eruption from the earth itself will put more components in the atmosphere than 10 nuclear bombs. The earth regulated itself long before we got here and will continue to do so long after we are gone. It is too big a force for humans to make a dent.



Source for any of this?

100 ppm CO2 increase in 150 years is nearly unprecedented and parallels human industrialism. Yes, volcanic eruptions can contribute but there have been no major volcanic events the last 150 years.

shally
02-16-2010, 11:53 AM
Source for any of this?

100 ppm CO2 increase in 150 years is nearly unprecedented and parallels human industrialism. Yes, volcanic eruptions can contribute but there have been no major volcanic events the last 150 years.

Mt St Helens ?????

constant stuff is going on in Hawaii

there have been other eruptions in the past 10 years, but nothing as cataclysmic as St Helens

Fathead
02-16-2010, 11:54 AM
Mt St Helens ?????

Not major by any stretch. In fact, it was relatively small, geologically speaking.

skins4life24
02-16-2010, 11:56 AM
Source for any of this?

100 ppm CO2 increase in 150 years is nearly unprecedented and parallels human industrialism. Yes, volcanic eruptions can contribute but there have been no major volcanic events the last 150 years.

To be honest it was a class i took as a elective about 4 years ago so I will try to dig up some sources.

Keino
02-16-2010, 11:56 AM
Mt St Helens ?????

I think the key word was major. Think Pompeii and Mt. Vesuvius....

shally
02-16-2010, 11:58 AM
Not major by any stretch. In fact, it was relatively small, geologically speaking.

you obviously have never lived in Washington state.. ash covered most of the entire state.. up to a foot deep here in Yakima..

youy could not possibly be more wrong on that one.. much of the cone blew off and the amount of particulates inthe air was insane..

tremendous mudslides for miles

shally
02-16-2010, 12:00 PM
I think the key word was major. Think Pompeii and Mt. Vesuvius....

the only difference was that there were cities right next to Vesuvius.. MtS Helens is inthe Cascades away from population centers

Fathead
02-16-2010, 12:01 PM
To be honest it was a class i took as a elective about 4 years ago so I will try to dig up some sources.

To be honest you are talking to an environmental geologist.




Mt. St. Helens was a 4 on the VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index). Its a factor of ten scale, so a 5 is ten times greater than a 4. A 5 is starting to get to globally significant, 6 and 7 are really the important ones.

Fathead
02-16-2010, 12:03 PM
you obviously have never lived in Washington state.. ash covered most of the entire state.. up to a foot deep here in Yakima..

youy could not possibly be more wrong on that one.. much of the cone blew off and the amount of particulates inthe air was insane..

tremendous mudslides for miles

Shally, I'm talking about geologic scales. Global scales. I'm not saying that it wasn't devastating on a local scale, it certainly was. But in the context of AGW, local devastation because of a volcano is irrelevant if it isn't large enough to have true global effects.

skins4life24
02-16-2010, 12:07 PM
Source for any of this?

100 ppm CO2 increase in 150 years is nearly unprecedented and parallels human industrialism. Yes, volcanic eruptions can contribute but there have been no major volcanic events the last 150 years.

Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines June 15, 1991, an estimated 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and ash particles blasted more than 12 miles high into the atmosphere

BurgundyNGold
02-16-2010, 12:07 PM
you obviously have never lived in Washington state.. ash covered most of the entire state.. up to a foot deep here in Yakima..

youy could not possibly be more wrong on that one.. much of the cone blew off and the amount of particulates inthe air was insane..

tremendous mudslides for miles
Yeah, but particulates in the air produce a cooling effect.

http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htm

The question is how much greenhouse gas was emitted? All volcanic eruptions combined in a given year are estimated to produce less than 5% (less than 2% by a USGS estimate) of the greenhouse gases emitted by man.

http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm

I think that we are experiencing a cyclical warming period and that human intervention is helping it along. The Earth is not the only planet in the solar system to be currently experiencing global warming. Mars is experiencing it too, along with Jupiter, Neptune's moon Triton and Pluto.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

The difference is that Mars doesn't have humankind around to help create a snowball effect, pardon the terrible analogy.

shally
02-16-2010, 12:08 PM
Shally, I'm talking about geologic scales. Global scales. I'm not saying that it wasn't devastating on a local scale, it certainly was. But in the context of AGW, local devastation because of a volcano is irrelevant if it isn't large enough to have true global effects.

how do you even know how much CO2 was put into the air ? the eruption was huge.. no records are available for comparison, but i would bet that MsH was bigger than Vesuvius. we have no way of knowing the impact because there are no records in antiquity except to the cities that were devastated.

as big as Krakatoa ?? i doubt it.. that one was immense

but you cant say how major or minor the effects were because there is no way of measuring what was put out during the eruption

skins4life24
02-16-2010, 12:11 PM
To be honest you are talking to an environmental geologist.


Talk about a leg up on the conversation. lol.

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 12:11 PM
I think the key word was major. Think Pompeii and Mt. Vesuvius....

Fathead is referring to Krakatoa I believe. Which effected weather patterns throughout the world because of the sheer amount of ash it threw up into the air. Even Vesuvius wasn't that big. There's only been 1-2 volcanic eruptions that large in recorded history: Krakatoa and Santorini(which, if you believe the sources, was seen on the Egyptian coast). There's only one volcano who has the potential for anything like that now, the one underneath Yellowstone national park.

Fathead
02-16-2010, 12:13 PM
how do you even know how much CO2 was put into the air ? the eruption was huge.. no records are available for comparison, but i would bet that MsH was bigger than Vesuvius. we have no way of knowing the impact because there are no records in antiquity except to the cities that were devastated.

as big as Krakatoa ?? i doubt it.. that one was immense

but you cant say how major or minor the effects were because there is no way of measuring what was put out during the eruption


Shally, its not difficult to get measurements of volcanic eruptions. The entire science of geology is built on being able to measure these things. If you really want me to start explaining the specifics of volcanology to you, then I'll be happy to do it, but its going to take a while.

BurgundyNGold
02-16-2010, 12:16 PM
Fathead is referring to Krakatoa I believe. Which effected weather patterns throughout the world because of the sheer amount of ash it threw up into the air. Even Vesuvius wasn't that big. There's only been 1-2 volcanic eruptions that large in recorded history: Krakatoa and Santorini(which, if you believe the sources, was seen on the Egyptian coast). There's only one volcano who has the potential for anything like that now, the one underneath Yellowstone national park.
Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991 and was considered to be the second largest eruption of the 20th century. The thing is, it actually cooled the Earth.

Yellowstone is also theorized to have contributed to, or flat out caused, an ice age itself the last time it erupted.

Fathead
02-16-2010, 12:16 PM
Fathead is referring to Krakatoa I believe. Which effected weather patterns throughout the world because of the sheer amount of ash it threw up into the air. Even Vesuvius wasn't that big. There's only been 1-2 volcanic eruptions that large in recorded history: Krakatoa and Santorini(which, if you believe the sources, was seen on the Egyptian coast). There's only one volcano who has the potential for anything like that now, the one underneath Yellowstone national park.



Yeah, I forget my audience and start assuming people know what I'm talking about, so I apologize for not being specific enough.


Anyway, Volcanoes generally have net negative effect on global temperature because of particulate levels. In fact, one of the factors that has been proposed on the massive increase in global temperature trends since the 70s is the advent of clean air legislation by the industrial nations. Fewer particulates, more sunlight reaching the surface.

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 12:18 PM
Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991 and was considered to be the second largest eruption of the 20th century. The thing is, it actually cooled the Earth.

Yellowstone is also theorized to have contributed to, or flat out caused, an ice age itself the last time it erupted.

I'm sure Fathead could illuminate how big it was relative history longer than the 29th century better than I could.

And Yellowstone could destroy the country before we knew what happened. Its...a problem lol.

skins4life24
02-16-2010, 12:19 PM
I'm sure Fathead could illuminate how big it was relative history longer than the 29th century better than I could.

And Yellowstone could destroy the country before we knew what happened. Its...a problem lol.

As if there wasn't enough to worry about! lol

Fathead
02-16-2010, 12:25 PM
If Yellowstone goes off, well, if you survive the eruption I suggest moving south.

CNYSkinFan
02-16-2010, 12:29 PM
I'm sure Fathead could illuminate how big it was relative history longer than the 29th century better than I could.

And Yellowstone could destroy the country before we knew what happened. Its...a problem lol.
A problem only Tommy Lee Jones and Anne Heche can solve!

quick someone get Roland Emerich on the phone I got a screenplay to sell!

Fathead
02-16-2010, 12:31 PM
lol



I'm just going to post this here because it makes me laugh:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Geologist

shally
02-16-2010, 12:44 PM
Shally, its not difficult to get measurements of volcanic eruptions. The entire science of geology is built on being able to measure these things. If you really want me to start explaining the specifics of volcanology to you, then I'll be happy to do it, but its going to take a while.

it would be wasted on my limited remaining brain cells..lol

Keino
02-16-2010, 06:52 PM
A problem only Tommy Lee Jones and Anne Heche can solve!

quick someone get Roland Emerich on the phone I got a screenplay to sell!

This only works if you cast Nicholas Cage.

smoak
02-16-2010, 07:06 PM
If Yellowstone goes off, well, if you survive the eruption I suggest moving south.

Will we have any indication/warning? I want to sell my house before prices in the Northern Hemisphere take a hit.

Fathead
02-16-2010, 07:14 PM
Will we have any indication/warning? I want to sell my house before prices in the Northern Hemisphere take a hit.

A really big boom.

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 07:24 PM
A really big boom.

When Utah goes up in flame.

Fathead
02-16-2010, 07:56 PM
When Utah goes up in flame.

Utah? No one cares about that godawful state.

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 08:02 PM
Utah? No one cares about that godawful state.

Ok..Colora....oh wait...no one cares about Colorado.

Fathead
02-16-2010, 08:14 PM
Nah, Colorado is okay. La Garita Caldera is one of the coolest things ever, plus just trying to comprehend its size is scary as anything.


Comparison:


Mt. St. Helens: about 1 cubic km of ejecta

La Garita: about 5,000 cubic km of ejecta

CNYSkinFan
02-16-2010, 09:29 PM
When Utah goes up in flame.
Well to be fair, utah going up in flames could be god's vengeance for outlawing bigamy

shally
02-16-2010, 09:31 PM
Nah, Colorado is okay. La Garita Caldera is one of the coolest things ever, plus just trying to comprehend its size is scary as anything.


Comparison:


Mt. St. Helens: about 1 cubic km of ejecta

La Garita: about 5,000 cubic km of ejecta

sounds like comparing the "ejecta" of LSU versus most any other college..lol

shally
02-16-2010, 09:32 PM
Well to be fair, utah going up in flames could be god's vengeance for outlawing bigamy

..or rejecting Mitt Romney ...

Fathead
02-16-2010, 09:32 PM
Well to be fair, utah going up in flames could be god's vengeance for outlawing bigamy



Utah needs to DIAF

shally
02-16-2010, 09:36 PM
Utah needs to DIAF

DIAF ????? please explain..

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 09:37 PM
..or rejecting Mitt Romney ...

Or doing something else to The Mormonator 5000... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021601615.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

Fathead
02-16-2010, 09:39 PM
DIAF ????? please explain..

Die
In
A
Fire

shally
02-16-2010, 09:40 PM
Or doing something else to The Mormonator 5000... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021601615.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

crap !!! i have said similar things to idiots sitting in front of me... then again, i wasnt traveling with golden tablets in my carry-on

shally
02-16-2010, 09:41 PM
Die
In
A
Fire

awwwww. i was hoping for something more apocalyptic than that..at least including brimstone..lol

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 09:41 PM
crap !!! i have said similar things to idiots sitting in front of me... then again, i wasnt traveling with golden tablets in my carry-on

I can see Palin's 2012 primary ad already: "Mitt's a pussy!" lol

Fathead
02-16-2010, 09:41 PM
lol mormon jokes http://www.amorecivilizedage.com/images/smilies/emot-colbert.gif



Just kidding.

shally
02-16-2010, 09:43 PM
I can see Palin's 2012 primary ad already: "Mitt's a pussy!" lol

well, he is SOOOOO metrosexual.. wait until he announces Larry Craig as his secretary of the (deep) interior

Fathead
02-16-2010, 09:44 PM
I miss Larry. Sure he was an embarrassment, but he got Idaho in the news.

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 09:46 PM
well, he is SOOOOO metrosexual.. wait until he announces Larry Craig as his secretary of the (deep) interior

Special envoy for backdoor negotiations lol

I miss Larry. Sure he was an embarrassment, but he got Idaho in the news.

Testing the boundaries of "no such thing about bad press coverage?"

Fathead
02-16-2010, 09:48 PM
When potatoes are your most famous product, you take whatever publicity you can get.

akhhorus
02-16-2010, 09:50 PM
When potatoes are your most famous product, you take whatever publicity you can get.

And both sides of this merge.... (http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/id/gov/idgvlc10.htm)

Fathead
02-16-2010, 09:52 PM
He never was good at staying in the closet.

shally
02-16-2010, 09:57 PM
And both sides of this merge.... (http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/id/gov/idgvlc10.htm)

wash and dry potato ?

core out ?

push hot dog into it ?

all he has to say is to tap your foot while you are bringing things to a boil..lol

BurgundyNGold
02-17-2010, 07:13 AM
What the...? All this talk about Larry Craig... I thought this was a global warming thread? The only thing getting hot in here is shally and his dry potato. :D

Fathead
02-17-2010, 10:37 AM
What the...? All this talk about Larry Craig... I thought this was a global warming thread? The only thing getting hot in here is shally and his dry potato. :D

All political threads eventually end up in a discussion of gay republicans.

CNYSkinFan
02-17-2010, 10:39 AM
All political threads eventually end up in a discussion of gay republicans.
to be fair there are just so many of them

Fathead
02-17-2010, 11:27 AM
to be fair there are just so many of them

Its generally faster to list the straight republican reps and senators.

shally
02-17-2010, 11:58 AM
All political threads eventually end up in a discussion of gay republicans.

people who live in log cabins shouldnt throw knotholes...

tuckahoeskin
02-17-2010, 12:06 PM
to be fair there are just so many of them

they tend to enjoy the theater as well

Fathead
02-17-2010, 12:21 PM
people who live in log cabins shouldnt throw knotholes...

Hey, I'm not republican!

CNYSkinFan
02-17-2010, 12:23 PM
they tend to enjoy the theater as well
just musical theater

shally
02-17-2010, 12:34 PM
Hey, I'm not republican!

i didnt mean you.. i was just cracking wise..lol

Spearfeather
02-17-2010, 06:34 PM
Some Margerate Sanger quotes:

• No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.

• Greater understanding and practice of planned parenthood, through the use of contraceptive measures prescribed by doctors and clinics, will mean that there will be more strong and healthy children and fewer defective and handicapped babies unable to find a useful or happy place in life.

• Woman must have her freedom, the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she will be a mother and how many children she will have. Regardless of what man's attitude may be, that problem is hers -- and before it can be his, it is hers alone. She goes through the vale of death alone, each time a babe is born. As it is the right neither of man nor the state to coerce her into this ordeal, so it is her right to decide whether she will endure it.

• It is our experience, as it was our aim, that as a result of child-spacing, and adequate care of mothers, death rates would be reduced. It is now a fact that as a result of birth control, the survival rate among mothers and children is higher. There is less suffering for all groups.

• When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new race.



• The real hope of the world lies in putting as painstaking thought into the business of mating as we do into other big businesses.

• Against the State, against the Church, against the silence of the medical profession, against the whole machinery of dead institutions of the past, the woman of today arises.

• War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap. They will cease only when she limits her reproductivity and human life is no longer a thing to be wasted.

akhhorus
02-17-2010, 06:42 PM
Some Margerate Sanger quotes:

• No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.

• Greater understanding and practice of planned parenthood, through the use of contraceptive measures prescribed by doctors and clinics, will mean that there will be more strong and healthy children and fewer defective and handicapped babies unable to find a useful or happy place in life.

• Woman must have her freedom, the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she will be a mother and how many children she will have. Regardless of what man's attitude may be, that problem is hers -- and before it can be his, it is hers alone. She goes through the vale of death alone, each time a babe is born. As it is the right neither of man nor the state to coerce her into this ordeal, so it is her right to decide whether she will endure it.

• It is our experience, as it was our aim, that as a result of child-spacing, and adequate care of mothers, death rates would be reduced. It is now a fact that as a result of birth control, the survival rate among mothers and children is higher. There is less suffering for all groups.

• When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new race.



• The real hope of the world lies in putting as painstaking thought into the business of mating as we do into other big businesses.

• Against the State, against the Church, against the silence of the medical profession, against the whole machinery of dead institutions of the past, the woman of today arises.

• War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap. They will cease only when she limits her reproductivity and human life is no longer a thing to be wasted.

Ok...what does this have to do with the Sanger debate earlier?

Keino
02-17-2010, 07:30 PM
Some Margerate Sanger quotes:

• No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother.

• Greater understanding and practice of planned parenthood, through the use of contraceptive measures prescribed by doctors and clinics, will mean that there will be more strong and healthy children and fewer defective and handicapped babies unable to find a useful or happy place in life.

• Woman must have her freedom, the fundamental freedom of choosing whether or not she will be a mother and how many children she will have. Regardless of what man's attitude may be, that problem is hers -- and before it can be his, it is hers alone. She goes through the vale of death alone, each time a babe is born. As it is the right neither of man nor the state to coerce her into this ordeal, so it is her right to decide whether she will endure it.

• It is our experience, as it was our aim, that as a result of child-spacing, and adequate care of mothers, death rates would be reduced. It is now a fact that as a result of birth control, the survival rate among mothers and children is higher. There is less suffering for all groups.

• When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new race.



• The real hope of the world lies in putting as painstaking thought into the business of mating as we do into other big businesses.

• Against the State, against the Church, against the silence of the medical profession, against the whole machinery of dead institutions of the past, the woman of today arises.

• War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap. They will cease only when she limits her reproductivity and human life is no longer a thing to be wasted.


What is so controversial about any of these quotes especially given the argument that was made earlier in the thread about Sanger?

I couldn't agree more with the emboldened quote. If people entered into parental unions with as much due diligence as businessmen do in consummating deals, we would have a world full of kids being raised by responsible parents, leading to stronger communities and a stronger nation.

shally
02-17-2010, 09:33 PM
What is so controversial about any of these quotes especially given the argument that was made earlier in the thread about Sanger?

I couldn't agree more with the emboldened quote. If people entered into parental unions with as much due diligence as businessmen do in consummating deals, we would have a world full of kids being raised by responsible parents, leading to stronger communities and a stronger nation.

because the fundamentalists insist that populating the world with un-cared for, ignorant, undereducated kids is their God Given right...

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 08:27 AM
A little something more for the debate: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

and regarding Phil Jones: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/not_unusual_not_the_hottest_not_still_warming/

akhhorus
02-18-2010, 10:35 AM
A little something more for the debate: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

None of his "gates" are actual scandals, he's mischaracterizing what actually happened in those "gates," but I can understand why his journalistic style appeals to you :)

and regarding Phil Jones: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/not_unusual_not_the_hottest_not_still_warming/

he's just rehashing the interview with the BBC. Odd that Bolt doesn't mention what Jones said about human causes of Global warming(which i've pointed out before and you're still ignoring).

Fathead
02-18-2010, 12:56 PM
he's just rehashing the interview with the BBC. Odd that Bolt doesn't mention what Jones said about human causes of Global warming(which i've pointed out before and you're still ignoring).

It doesn't matter what Jones actually said, akh. It just matters what he gets reported as saying. Watch, I'll prove this theory:


Anthropogenic Global Warming is not only fact, its actually the most widely accepted scientific theory to have been developed in the last 50 years


See! Tuck conceded!

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 01:11 PM
It doesn't matter what Jones actually said, akh. It just matters what he gets reported as saying. Watch, I'll prove this theory:





See! Tuck conceded!

Funny. Quite witty. Pat yourself on the back, kid.

We'll see the truth come out on the subject. The tide is already turning against AGW.

Fathead
02-18-2010, 01:13 PM
Funny. Quite witty. Pat yourself on the back, kid.

We'll see the truth come out on the subject. The tide is already turning against AGW.

Right about the time you acknowledge what Jones actually thinks, right?


So about 10 minutes to never.

Keino
02-18-2010, 01:21 PM
Funny. Quite witty. Pat yourself on the back, kid.

We'll see the truth come out on the subject. The tide is already turning against AGW.

Are you ever going to address the 2nd post in this thread in which you were called out for saying that someone said something they didn't say?

I don't think anyone here is going to allow you to just sweep it under the rug.

akhhorus
02-18-2010, 01:28 PM
Funny. Quite witty. Pat yourself on the back, kid.

We'll see the truth come out on the subject. The tide is already turning against AGW.

The tide will turn when there's documentable proof that the earth is cooling in line with its past cyclical nature(which would take a massive drop in temps) or when there's even a shred of proof that climate scientists are fabricating anything. I'm not going to hold my breath on either happening.

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 01:45 PM
Right about the time you acknowledge what Jones actually thinks, right?


So about 10 minutes to never.

Would you bet your mortgage on Phil Jones? Would you bet your business? Your reputation? He and his entire organization played fast and loose with the data. They had a direct reason to do so: cultivating the crisis funneled more research funds into their coffers. They perpetuated a Big Lie. While they may have honestly believed the issue was real in the beginning, when the data proved otherwise they manipulated things to perpetuate the hoax.

I do not believe AGW is real. I never have. It smelled of shakedown from the start. The truth is coming out and more people are seeing it for what it is. It may take a while for the "true believers" to finally see it, but it'll happen.

I remember the "Next Ice Age" scare in the late seventies. Anyone born in 1979 or 1980 just doesn't have any personal basis or reference for something like this. I still have some of my Grandfathers trade journals from the time that showed how to build underground houses and heat sinks to save on heating costs. Two years later and no one was doing so. There are issues that require action and others that require skepticism. Climate Change/Global Warming, to me, has always called for skepticism.

One more thing, do you think I've personally attacked you in this debate? I don't think so, but if I have it was regrettable. We're having a debate -- it's about issues. Argue the points and don't make it personal. I'm sure your buddy will chime in on this comment, he always has something to say. So be it.

Fathead
02-18-2010, 01:50 PM
One more thing, do you think I've personally attacked you in this debate? I don't think so, but if I have it was regrettable. We're having a debate -- it's about issues. Argue the points and don't make it personal. I'm sure your buddy will chime in on this comment, he always has something to say. So be it.



When did I turn it personal? You started spouting off and saying people said things they didn't. You refused to acknowledge that fact, you still haven't acknowledged it. I used your same "debate" technique against you. Now you want to cry foul.


If you can't acknowledge the facts, you aren't debating.

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 01:50 PM
Are you ever going to address the 2nd post in this thread in which you were called out for saying that someone said something they didn't say?

I don't think anyone here is going to allow you to just sweep it under the rug.

People on the AGW skeptic side of the debate have pointed out that climate runs in cycles. This current period being referenced would tend to bolster that argument. The highlighted comment doesn't prove anything on the AGW believers side.

Fathead
02-18-2010, 01:51 PM
People on the AGW skeptic side of the debate have pointed out that climate runs in cycles. This current period being referenced would tend to bolster that argument. The highlighted comment doesn't prove anything on the AGW believers side.

I ask again, have you actually read the IPCC report? Do you know anything about climate science outside of reading a few articles on the internet?

akhhorus
02-18-2010, 01:54 PM
Would you bet your mortgage on Phil Jones? Would you bet your business? Your reputation? He and his entire organization played fast and loose with the data. They had a direct reason to do so: cultivating the crisis funneled more research funds into their coffers. They perpetuated a Big Lie. While they may have honestly believed the issue was real in the beginning, when the data proved otherwise they manipulated things to perpetuate the hoax.

Except that there was absolutely zero proof in the "climategate" emails that anyone is fabricating anything. And feel free to show proof of any of your allegations.

I do not believe AGW is real. I never have. It smelled of shakedown from the start. The truth is coming out and more people are seeing it for what it is. It may take a while for the "true believers" to finally see it, but it'll happen.


You can believe whatever you want to, but there's been nothing to disprove global warming. If its a shakedown, what's the goal? Research money? They can get that for basically doing anything. If its all a big lie, where's the massive split in the climatological scientific community? Historians still argue over dumb issues like who was right: Caesar or Senate..and you would have us believe that the entire academic climatological community is not only able to perpetrate a hoax, but keep the hoax going. That's just impossible.

One more thing, do you think I've personally attacked you in this debate? I don't think so, but if I have it was regrettable. We're having a debate -- it's about issues. Argue the points and don't make it personal. I'm sure your buddy will chime in on this comment, he always has something to say. So be it.

No, this isn't a debate. This is you posting a link, just repeating what the links say, then throwing a temper tantrum whenever someone points out when you're lying instead of just admitting your link got something wrong. You can keep up your pathetic little grievance mongering against me if you want to, but if doesn't change the fact that you're full of sh*t and can't respond when thats pointed out to you.

akhhorus
02-18-2010, 01:55 PM
People on the AGW skeptic side of the debate have pointed out that climate runs in cycles. This current period being referenced would tend to bolster that argument. The highlighted comment doesn't prove anything on the AGW believers side.

What does this have to do with Keino's question? You claimed that Phil Jones said something. I posted a link to the interview and showed where he said the opposite.

As for the cyclical argument: thats wrong. The temp data pretty clearly shows that we're off the cycle.

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 01:56 PM
When did I turn it personal? You started spouting off and saying people said things they didn't. You refused to acknowledge that fact, you still haven't acknowledged it. I used your same "debate" technique against you. Now you want to cry foul.


If you can't acknowledge the facts, you aren't debating.

I didn't see his highlighted comment as anything worth refuting quite honestly. An entire interview where he admits to evidence that counters his entire premise and you want to point to one comment and say "ah hah!" Please.

We are on opposite sides of this debate. I feel quite comfortable that my side will be proven correct when all is said and done. Regards.

Fathead
02-18-2010, 01:58 PM
The idea that only climate deniers are saying climate is cyclical is beyond ridiculous. The whole concept of AGW is that the global warming trend since the last ice age has been artificially accelerated by human activity, specifically the release of greenhouse gases like CO2. No climate scientist worth his/her salt would EVER insinuate that climate isn't cyclical.

akhhorus
02-18-2010, 02:00 PM
I didn't see his highlighted comment as anything worth refuting quite honestly. An entire interview where he admits to evidence that counters his entire premise and you want to point to one comment and say "ah hah!" Please.


He said this:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.


So, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Especially when .15C per decade is considered significant change to his numbers. And especially when the warming trend is extremely high prior to that sample.

Don't worry Tuck, I don't expect a remotely coherent response. I know you're incapable of it.

Fathead
02-18-2010, 02:00 PM
I didn't see his highlighted comment as anything worth refuting quite honestly. An entire interview where he admits to evidence that counters his entire premise and you want to point to one comment and say "ah hah!" Please.

We are on opposite sides of this debate. I feel quite comfortable that my side will be proven correct when all is said and done. Regards.




You didn't bother to read the link akh posted, you didn't bother to read the actual IPCC report, and you once again refuse to acknowledge the fact that what you posted and what is reality are not at all agreeable.


You aren't debating, you are throwing a temper tantrum.

Fathead
02-18-2010, 02:04 PM
The name of this thread:


Global Warming Scientist Does U-Turn (http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=50921)



Jones opinion on AGW:

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.



Such a U turn!

Keino
02-18-2010, 02:10 PM
People on the AGW skeptic side of the debate have pointed out that climate runs in cycles. This current period being referenced would tend to bolster that argument. The highlighted comment doesn't prove anything on the AGW believers side.

Nevertheless, you made a claim about someone doing a U-Turn when in fact they did no such thing.

I think everyone on the opposing side of your argument has acknowledged the cyclicial nature of weather patterns. But cycles themselves do not disprove the idea that Man's activities impact this.

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 02:19 PM
There have been arguments pointing to solar activity as the cause for a rise in temperatures. This would counter the AGW arguments. See here: http://mynasa.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html

"New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. "

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 02:24 PM
Nevertheless, you made a claim about someone doing a U-Turn when in fact they did no such thing.

I think everyone on the opposing side of your argument has acknowledged the cyclicial nature of weather patterns. But cycles themselves do not disprove the idea that Man's activities impact this.

Did you read the second article linked in the initial post as well?

"Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said."

Fathead
02-18-2010, 02:25 PM
There have been arguments pointing to solar activity as the cause for a rise in temperatures. This would counter the AGW arguments. See here: http://mynasa.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html

"New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. "

By the way, the name of the thread came from the initial article posted.



Did you actually read that article? Because its totally irrelevant.

akhhorus
02-18-2010, 02:26 PM
There have been arguments pointing to solar activity as the cause for a rise in temperatures. This would counter the AGW arguments. See here: http://mynasa.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html

"New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere. "


So how exactly did a sun cycle that they have starting in 2002 raise the earth's temperature starting over 100 years ago?

By the way, the name of the thread came from the initial article posted.

So, why didn't you just say "whoops!" when I pointed out how the article was basically lying about Jones' position? Or is this another irrelevant comment on your part?

Did you read the second article linked in the initial post as well?

"Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said."

He's not much of a statistician if he sees the sudden rise without any correction as a random fluctuation.

Ibleedburgundy
02-18-2010, 02:27 PM
Would you bet your mortgage on Phil Jones? Would you bet your business? Your reputation? He and his entire organization played fast and loose with the data.

That's odd. You didn't raise any issues with his credibility back when you thought he was saying what you wanted to hear.

Interestingly, Republicans like yourself have misrepresented what Phil Jones said in precisely the same way on each of the three message boards I frequent.

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 02:29 PM
Did you actually read that article? Because its totally irrelevant.

Of course I read it. It is entirely plausible that the reason for the most recent period of warming was due to solar activity. That has not been suitably studied as of yet. It should be. But why would anyone do that? If it's the sun's fault, rather than mean capitalist countries, who is the UN going to make pay?

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 02:30 PM
That's odd. You didn't raise any issues with his credibility back when you thought he was saying what you wanted to hear.

Interestingly, Republicans like yourself have misrepresented what Phil Jones said in precisely the same way on each of the three message boards I frequent.

Three message boards? You do bleed burgandy.

Ibleedburgundy
02-18-2010, 02:31 PM
You do bleed burgandy.

lol if you only knew.

Fathead
02-18-2010, 02:34 PM
First off, it has been studied. You just haven't read the papers. Second, posting an article about the sun having an effect on the thermosphere, when AGW is talking about the troposphere, is like talking about how college enrollment numbers are going to hurt the NFL.

akhhorus
02-18-2010, 02:45 PM
Of course I read it. It is entirely plausible that the reason for the most recent period of warming was due to solar activity. That has not been suitably studied as of yet. It should be. But why would anyone do that? If it's the sun's fault, rather than mean capitalist countries, who is the UN going to make pay?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k2rfk6VyHkQ/SFaF7R_8BnI/AAAAAAAAAc8/cMuzXd79iTA/s400/TinFoilHatArea.jpg

Please show me how the UN could make anyone pay any money?

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 02:56 PM
From the Jones interview:

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. "



How on the one hand is 0.12C significant, yet on the other hand -0.12C not significant?

Fathead
02-18-2010, 02:58 PM
From the Jones interview:

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. "



How on the one hand is 0.12C significant, yet on the other hand -0.12C not significant?



Because of the time intervals. Its not a trend unless it lasts long enough to be one. The stock market fluxes every day but a day is not significant. This is basic stats and science.

akhhorus
02-18-2010, 02:58 PM
From the Jones interview:

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. "



How on the one hand is 0.12C significant, yet on the other hand -0.12C not significant?

"This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. "

You've answered your own question lol

Fathead
02-18-2010, 02:59 PM
Its like talking to a wall.

tuckahoeskin
02-18-2010, 03:10 PM
Because of the time intervals. Its not a trend unless it lasts long enough to be one. The stock market fluxes every day but a day is not significant. This is basic stats and science.

I could agree with that if we were comparising 5 years to 25, but the years compared in this instance aren't that far apart.

akhhorus
02-18-2010, 03:21 PM
I could agree with that if we were comparising 5 years to 25, but the years compared in this instance aren't that far apart.

Jones said both trends weren't statistically significant.

Ibleedburgundy
02-18-2010, 03:21 PM
I could agree with that if we were comparising 5 years to 25, but the years compared in this instance aren't that far apart.

...and by "not that far apart" you mean 75% different lol (14/8).

Jones addressed what has occurred over the last 50-60 years.

OCSkinzFan
02-18-2010, 06:00 PM
To be honest you are talking to an environmental geologist.




Mt. St. Helens was a 4 on the VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index). Its a factor of ten scale, so a 5 is ten times greater than a 4. A 5 is starting to get to globally significant, 6 and 7 are really the important ones.

Not that it's a big deal but I believe St. Helens was a 5 (paroxysmal). Much smaller but having the same plume height (>25 km) as colossal , 7 super-colossal, and 8 mega-colossal.

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/eruption_scale.html

Fathead
02-18-2010, 06:52 PM
Not that it's a big deal but I believe St. Helens was a 5 (paroxysmal). Much smaller but having the same plume height (>25 km) as colossal , 7 super-colossal, and 8 mega-colossal.

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/eruption_scale.html

Its right on the line. Some texts will put it at 5, some at 4.

tuckahoeskin
02-19-2010, 07:50 AM
This is an interesting report found on SurfaceStations.org by Anthony Watts. He has 25 years of experience in meteorology.

The report discusses the problems with surface temperature measuring stations. As it has been pointed out, with the growth of cities, some of the measuring stations may have been impacted by the encroachment of buildings, roads, parking lots, etc. The result causing a heat gain that skews the readings higher. As the report states, if this is happening in the U.S. where the data stations are considered first rate, how can we trust the findings from stations elsewhere?

From the report:

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads,
on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at
wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own
siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/
reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited."

Link: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

akhhorus
02-19-2010, 08:04 AM
This is an interesting report found on SurfaceStations.org by Anthony Watts. He has 25 years of experience in meteorology.

The report discusses the problems with surface temperature measuring stations. As it has been pointed out, with the growth of cities, some of the measuring stations may have been impacted by the encroachment of buildings, roads, parking lots, etc. The result causing a heat gain that skews the readings higher. As the report states, if this is happening in the U.S. where the data stations are considered first rate, how can we trust the findings from stations elsewhere?

From the report:

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads,
on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at
wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own
siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/
reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited."

Link: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Debunked: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35676_New_Study-_US_Weather_Stations_Not_Biased_Toward_Warming

Annual average maximum and minimum unadjusted temperature change calculated using (c) maximum and (d) minimum temperatures from good and poor exposure sites (Menne 2010). Poor sites showed a cooler maximum temperature compared to good sites. For minimum temperature, the poor sites were slightly warmer. The net effect was a cool bias in poorly sited stations.

Fathead
02-19-2010, 08:25 AM
Grasping at straws.

tuckahoeskin
02-19-2010, 09:08 AM
Debunked? Not yet. It's still in debate. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/on-weather-stations-and-climate-trends/#more-13827

There are questions about the methodology used for the counter report. It's still to play out.

Interestingly, there are issues with the change over of equipment as the stations are modernized. Far down in this article it's pointed out that newer types of thermometers used in stations in California show warmer readings. Not claiming intentional deception by anyone because of this, but shouldn't this sort of thing be considered in the greater discussion? Bad information going in would produce bad information going out.

akhhorus
02-19-2010, 09:40 AM
Debunked? Not yet. It's still in debate. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/on-weather-stations-and-climate-trends/#more-13827

There are questions about the methodology used for the counter report. It's still to play out.


Do you even read the links that you post? That link basically destroys Watts cred when pointing out that he refused to take part in a joint study to find the truth of the matter.

Interestingly, there are issues with the change over of equipment as the stations are modernized. Far down in this article it's pointed out that newer types of thermometers used in stations in California show warmer readings. Not claiming intentional deception by anyone because of this, but shouldn't this sort of thing be considered in the greater discussion? Bad information going in would produce bad information going out.

If there was a problem with a group of thermometers, the discrepancy would have easily been spotted by other thermometers in the same area, do you have any proof of such discrepancies?

Fathead
02-19-2010, 09:41 AM
blog=reliable source now.

tuckahoeskin
02-19-2010, 10:14 AM
blog=reliable source now.

Little Green Footballs?

akhhorus
02-19-2010, 10:15 AM
Little Green Footballs?

LGF links the report on it. So, your point is.....

BurgundyNGold
02-19-2010, 10:21 AM
There is now imperical proof that the hot air emanating from this thread has raised the mean temperature of the earth by 0.15 degrees (C). ;)

Fathead
02-19-2010, 11:08 AM
There is now imperical proof that the hot air emanating from this thread has raised the mean temperature of the earth by 0.15 degrees (C). ;)

Unfortunately for the time interval for this thread, the rise is statistically insignificant.

dj_stouty
02-19-2010, 11:11 AM
There is now imperical proof that the hot air emanating from this thread has raised the mean temperature of the earth by 0.15 degrees (C). ;)

lol.

Maybe that 0.15 degree increase was responsible for that infamously fast turf in Indy during that NFL Combine a few years back. lol.

remaxjon
04-29-2010, 10:09 AM
This guy is going to be screwed when the sea level rises.


http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-hotprop-gore-20100428,0,4103538.story

Fathead
05-16-2010, 08:15 PM
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/

CNYSkinFan
05-16-2010, 08:48 PM
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/
Don't give me none of that fancy book learnin

Keino
05-17-2010, 08:49 AM
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/

All your fancy graphs, tables and Geology talk prove nothing. Clearly you geologists are a bunch of pinko liberal tree hugging sissies that merely want to stand in the way of progress to save the arctic fox and some seals.

Fathead
05-17-2010, 09:21 AM
All your fancy graphs, tables and Geology talk prove nothing. Clearly you geologists are a bunch of pinko liberal tree hugging sissies that merely want to stand in the way of progress to save the arctic fox and some seals.

You've got me. I clearly am in this for the money and because I love Polar Bears more than people.

BurgundyNGold
05-17-2010, 11:56 AM
There is now imperical proof that the hot air emanating from this thread has raised the mean temperature of the earth by 0.15 degrees (C). ;)
As I've been saying, now it's been proven. With science!

RedskinsDave
05-17-2010, 11:59 AM
As I've been saying, now it's been proven. With science!

And snark.

BurgundyNGold
05-17-2010, 12:07 PM
And snark.
:lol1:

Global warming is for real, but let's not get too worked up over what amounts to a blip. Otherwise, we're no different than those clowns on both sides of the debate who got all worked up about the blizzardseses.

Keino
05-17-2010, 01:02 PM
:lol1:

Global warming is for real, but let's not get too worked up over what amounts to a blip. Otherwise, we're no different than those clowns on both sides of the debate who got all worked up about the blizzardseses.

Read the above in this guy's voice and let me know if you laughed as hard as I did:

http://ladiesinthered.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/gollum-pic.jpg

BurgundyNGold
05-18-2010, 07:37 AM
Read the above in this guy's voice and let me know if you laughed as hard as I did:

http://ladiesinthered.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/gollum-pic.jpg

I laughed at the end with "blizzardseses" lol.

Keino
05-18-2010, 07:45 PM
I laughed at the end with "blizzardseses" lol.

Well you have to add a few "Precious" in there for it to really have the effect.......


"Global warming is for real Precious, but let's not get Precious too worked up over what amounts to a blip. Otherwise, Precious, we're no different than those clowns on both sides of the debate who got all worked up about the blizzardseses. They are Trixies.

RedskinsReaper21
05-26-2010, 08:37 AM
The Earth is millions of years old...humans have been around for a couple thousand. How arrogant are we to think that climate on Earth has always and will always be ideal for human life?

Ibleedburgundy
05-26-2010, 08:45 AM
The Earth is millions of years old...humans have been around for a couple thousand. How arrogant are we to think that climate on Earth has always and will always be ideal for human life?

uh, the Earth is billions of years old, not millions. And humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, although for these purposes you might want to go from the industrial revolution forward. And if you do, you will notice there have been profound changes to the climate (BTW, climate is not just temperature, it's also the chemical composition of the environment).

What boggles my mind is that we can't agree on keeping the environment clean. Seems like something everyone could get behind. A lot of people say they are for a clean environment but they aren't willing to make even the slightest monetary sacrifice for it.

RedskinsReaper21
05-27-2010, 06:26 AM
uh, the Earth is billions of years old, not millions. And humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, although for these purposes you might want to go from the industrial revolution forward. And if you do, you will notice there have been profound changes to the climate (BTW, climate is not just temperature, it's also the chemical composition of the environment).

What boggles my mind is that we can't agree on keeping the environment clean. Seems like something everyone could get behind. A lot of people say they are for a clean environment but they aren't willing to make even the slightest monetary sacrifice for it.

I agree about keeping the environment clean and we as humans have the responsibility to keep the Earth habitable for all who share it. I think you see my point - we arent special and the Earth/mother nature owes us nothing...
But some people dont have the money to sacrifice...how much carbon emissions come from developing countries?

Ibleedburgundy
05-27-2010, 08:15 AM
I agree about keeping the environment clean and we as humans have the responsibility to keep the Earth habitable for all who share it. I think you see my point - we arent special and the Earth/mother nature owes us nothing...
But some people dont have the money to sacrifice...how much carbon emissions come from developing countries?

IMO, carbon emmissions from China are no excuse for anything. If we pollute less and they still pollute more, it's still better than them polluting more and us polluting more. Besides, to a large degree air pollution is local so our motivations really should be quite selfish. Personally, I don't care about global warming or the science behind it. I just don't feel like breathing coal emmissions if I don't have to, or not being able to go fishing in certain places because the water is unsanitary, or having a beach covered in oil when in fact simple precautions could have prevented all three of these things.

Fathead
05-27-2010, 07:06 PM
The Earth is millions of years old...humans have been around for a couple thousand. How arrogant are we to think that climate on Earth has always and will always be ideal for human life?



4.6 billion. And who are these arrogant people?