global warming data...garbage in...

[pgsmith]

Preach that to China and India....

I live in neither of those countries, so I do not have a voice in what they do. However, the old saw about "they do it" as if that somehow makes it OK for us, is something that my children used to say all the time when they were little. I'll tell you the same thing I used to tell them, as well as my Boy Scouts ... That's ridiculous. Justifying what you do based upon what others do is to attempt to avoid your own responsibility. Determine what the right thing to do is whithin the context of your own life, then do it. That is called personal responsibility, and is something we need mcuh more of in this country.

Bill, you never answered the questions I asked. I am still curious.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I live in neither of those countries, so I do not have a voice in what they do. However, the old saw about "they do it" as if that somehow makes it OK for us, is something that my children used to say all the time when they were little. I'll tell you the same thing I used to tell them, as well as my Boy Scouts ... That's ridiculous. Justifying what you do based upon what others do is to attempt to avoid your own responsibility. Determine what the right thing to do is whithin the context of your own life, then do it. That is called personal responsibility, and is something we need mcuh more of in this country.

Bill, you never answered the questions I asked. I am still curious.

Or as multiple teachers in school, my first sensei and my parents ocassionally said to me growing up. "So if they all jump off a cliff then I guess it is ok for you too... right"

 

[Tgace]

Isn't deforestation of the rain forest going to kill us all first anyways?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

I live in neither of those countries, so I do not have a voice in what they do. However, the old saw about "they do it" as if that somehow makes it OK for us, is something that my children used to say all the time when they were little. I'll tell you the same thing I used to tell them, as well as my Boy Scouts ... That's ridiculous. Justifying what you do based upon what others do is to attempt to avoid your own responsibility. Determine what the right thing to do is whithin the context of your own life, then do it. That is called personal responsibility, and is something we need mcuh more of in this country.

Bill, you never answered the questions I asked. I am still curious.

So we should make huge changes that will impact our economy even though...with China chugging away unchanged...we will have the same end result?

Got it.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Xue Sheng]

And we... well not we but the top (small) percentage of the population of all 3 countries... like China and India will have all the money in the world on a dying planet...then what...money is ok but air, food and water are better

 

[ballen0351]

And we... well not we but the top (small) percentage of the population of all 3 countries... like China and India will have all the money in the world on a dying planet...then what...money is ok but air, food and water are better

So its a much better plan to punish us with higher priced gas and energy so when china and India destroy our air food and water anyway we can all die broke

 

[Xue Sheng]

So its a much better plan to punish us with higher priced gas and energy so when china and India destroy our air food and water anyway we can all die broke

Who said anything about punishing anyone....I mean other than you.... so I guess from your post I can then surmise that you are equating clean air, water and food to punishment..... That is interesting

Besides..what good is money if your dead as the planet you once lived on

 

[ballen0351]

Who said anything about punishing anyone....I mean other than you.... so I guess from your post I can then surmise that you are equating clean air, water and food to punishment..... That is interesting

Besides..what good is money if your dead as the planet you once lived on

When the govt say it would like to see gas prices as high as Europe so we won't drive as much that's punishment. When the govt wants to shut down coal plants and cause energy prices to rise that's punishment. When they refuse to drill for oil to purposely drive up prices that's punishment.

 

[Tgace]

When the govt say it would like to see gas prices as high as Europe so we won't drive as much that's punishment. When the govt wants to shut down coal plants and cause energy prices to rise that's punishment. When they refuse to drill for oil to purposely drive up prices that's punishment.

And when the price of everything..and I mean EVERYTHING is driven up so high that we force more people into poverty, these same people will be complaining that the government will have to DO something about the cost of living.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Xue Sheng]

When the govt say it would like to see gas prices as high as Europe so we won't drive as much that's punishment. When the govt wants to shut down coal plants and cause energy prices to rise that's punishment. When they refuse to drill for oil to purposely drive up prices that's punishment.

But I never said anything about any of that now did I so I then surmised that you are equating clean air, water and food with punishment. Now you are changing the discussion to an issue I never even mentioned nor do I plan on talking about at all

Your Government issues have little to do with Global warming and its possible causes. You may need to separate those in order to discuss Global warming with less emotional content

 

[Tgace]

But I never said anything about any of that now did I so I then surmised that you are equating clean air, water and food with punishment. Now you are changing the discussion to an issue I never even mentioned nor do I plan on talking about at all

Your Government issues have little to do with Global warming and its possible causes. You may need to separate those in order to discuss Global warming with less emotional content

What?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[pgsmith]

So its a much better plan to punish us with higher priced gas and energy so when china and India destroy our air food and water anyway we can all die broke

Think whatever you like, it's still a free country. For myself, I'll do the little things that make sense within the context of my life, and will continue to wish that others would do their part. However, I refuse to whine and complain about 'them' that are 'hurting our economy' by wanting tighter pollution controls. I prefer to lay the blame for our poor economy squarely on all the millions of people that are eagerly buying cheap Chinese made goods at their local Walmart to save themselves a buck. Couple that with all of those already filthy rich people that are moving their manufacturing facilities out to other countries because of the super cheap cost of labor. Pollution controls don't cause that, the dirt poor people in other countries combined with the greedy 'me first' attitude of the U.S. population is what is to blame.

So, are you doing your little bit to make things better or worse?

 

[billc]

From your questions...

I know it's stupid, but I just can't help myself ... OK Bill, while you're ranting on about your usual topics, let me point out a couple of things here. First is the fact that the average global air and sea temperature is rising. This is undisputed, and every single climatologist agrees with this fact. Not theory, fact. Second is the fact that methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat, and increases the earth's average temperature. This is also undisputed fact that is agreed with by everyone involved in climatology. What is disputed among some climatologists is whether humanity is directly responsible for the rising temperatures or not. However, given these two facts, do you personally think it's a good idea to ignore how many millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane gasses that our industries pump into the atmosphere every year? Does it really appear to you that ignoring any potential ill effects from our manufacturing processes is the best thing to do? Do you think that ignoring how many toxins are pumped into the ocean is a good idea also? In your opinion, should we release all pollution controls from our industries so they can maximize their profits, or do you think that limits on pollution are a necessary regulation?

I am truly interested in your answers to these questions.​

1) No, I don't know that it is an undisputed fact considering the tampering with the data that we have from the very people who are in charge of the I.P.C.C report.

2)No, we should be careful of the pollution that we put into the air, not as it concerns global warming but for local living conditions.

3) Ignoring it, no, placing it above all other concerns, for a hysteria over man made global warming is again something I don't want to support. A real, cost benefit analysis and impact on how the pollution control attempts actually impact people at the same time we look at the over all environmental impact, with more weight put to how it affects local humans, first.

4) Polluting the oceans, of course not. But once again, a rational policy regarding pollution control versus and environmental extremist policy.

5)Of course, in fact we should pay them to poison the air and water and land, as well as making sure the food we eat is even more deadly than the air, water and land.

Why is it with you global warming extremists if someone wants 1) legitimate science followed and not environmentalist cover ups 2) that you always accuse the people who disagree with you of not wanting any form of pollution control at all. That's just silly thinking on your part, not ours.

What problem do we have with environmental extremist policies...one example is the California central valley that has been brought to my attention by Dennis Miller, and comedian Paul Rodrieguez, whose family owns farmland in the valley. The delta smelt gets priority over the human farmers and because of this, their farms can't get the water that they need. People are losing their farms over this policy. Vast areas are going to waste for want of water. As to global warming, I'll take a good cost benefit analysis of pollution control techniques, done by impartial groups, and not the E.P.A. They are radical environmentalists as well as bureaucrats.

Now, here is why I don't trust the science...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/climate-high-sticking-the-unmanly-mann.php

I had never before made the connection between Mann and Sandusky's University...

Oh this is going to be fun. Michael Mann—he of the iconic climate change “hockey stick” that purports to prove man-made climate change by displaying how global temperature is at its highest level in 2000 years (somehow making the Medieval warm period disappear)—is threatening to sue National Review and Mark Steyn (and perhaps Peter Wood of the National Association of Scholars) for libel for questioning whether Penn State’s exoneration of Mann over the “Climategate” scandal was as self-serving as their investigation of Jerry Sandusky. Rand Simberg wrote in a blogpost post that “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

This is the interesting bit...

The editor of Simberg’s blog subsequently removed this sentence from the post, but it lives on in a post of Steyn’s, to which Steyn added:

Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.


​

 

[ballen0351]

But I never said anything about any of that now did I so I then surmised that you are equating clean air, water and food with punishment. Now you are changing the discussion to an issue I never even mentioned nor do I plan on talking about at all

Your Government issues have little to do with Global warming and its possible causes. You may need to separate those in order to discuss Global warming with less emotional content

So you choose to talk about the problem but not the Govt "fix" for the problem. Got it and why would you not want to talk about the "fix" hmmm I cant imagine why lol.

 

[billc]

Who is Michael Mann and why is his cover ups so important to the global warming debate...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...manly-mann.php

This is where the fun will begin. First off, Mann has been stonewalling on legal requests to turn over his own emails and other private documents in suits against his former employer, the University of Virginia. Now he’ll have to cough those up. But second, I’ll enjoy reading depositions of some of his scientific colleagues, many of whom, while agreeing with Mann generally about climate change, nonetheless find Mann to be an insufferable jerk. In my long review of the “Climategate” email cache, I came across repeated complaints about Mann’s ego, along with doubts about his hockey stick. (So much for an iron-clad “consensus.&#8217 Here’s the relevant part of my long Weekly Standard article about Climategate in 2009 that deals with Mann:

CRU scientist Keith Briffa, whose work on tree rings in Siberia has been subject to its own controversies, emailed Edward Cook of Columbia University: “I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series,” adding that he was tired of “the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage [Mann] has produced over the last few years .  .  . and (better say no more).”
Cook replied: “I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon[struction], particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. .  .  . It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”
In yet another revealing email, Cook told Briffa: “Of course [Bradley] and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only ‘half-empty’; it is demonstrably ‘broken’. I come more from the ‘cup half-full’ camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it is.”
Even as the IPCC was picking up Mann’s hockey stick with enthusiasm, Briffa sent Mann a note of caution about “the possibility of expressing an impression of more consensus than might actually exist. I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent consensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence.” Briffa had previously dissented from the hockey stick reconstruction in a 1999 email to Mann and Phil Jones: “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” Even Malcolm Hughes, one of the original hockey stick coauthors, privately expressed reservations about overreliance on their invention, writing to Cook, Mann and others in 2002:
“All of our attempts, so far, to estimate hemisphere-scale temperatures for the period around 1000 years ago are based on far fewer data than any of us would like. None of the datasets used so far has anything like the geographical distribution that experience with recent centuries indicates we need, and no one has yet found a convincing way of validating the lower-frequency components of them against independent data. As Ed [Cook] wrote, in the tree-ring records that form the backbone of most of the published estimates, the problem of poor replication near the beginnings of records is particularly acute, and ubiquitous. .  .  . Therefore, I accept that everything we are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with considerable caution.”
Mann didn’t react well to these hesitations from his colleagues. Even Ray Bradley, a coauthor of the hockey stick article, felt compelled to send a message to Briffa after one of Mann’s self-serving emails with the single line: “Excuse me while I puke.” One extended thread grew increasingly acrimonious as Mann lashed out at his colleagues. He wrote to Briffa, Jones, and seven others in a fury over their favorable remarks about a Science magazine article that offered a temperature history that differed from the hockey stick: “Sadly, your piece on the Esper et al paper is more flawed than even the paper itself. .  .  . There is a lot of damage control that needs to be done and, in my opinion, you’ve done a disservice to the honest discussions we had all had in the past, because you’ve misrepresented the evidence.”


​

The original Weekly Standard Article...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp

How can you know about this level of corruption among the "experts" on man made global warming and not think to yourself, "Perhaps there is something untrue about what they are covering up..." Yet, the believers in man mad global warming continue to march along trying to generate hysteria as they go...

 

[ballen0351]

Think whatever you like, it's still a free country. For myself, I'll do the little things that make sense within the context of my life, and will continue to wish that others would do their part. However, I refuse to whine and complain about 'them' that are 'hurting our economy' by wanting tighter pollution controls. I prefer to lay the blame for our poor economy squarely on all the millions of people that are eagerly buying cheap Chinese made goods at their local Walmart to save themselves a buck. Couple that with all of those already filthy rich people that are moving their manufacturing facilities out to other countries because of the super cheap cost of labor. Pollution controls don't cause that, the dirt poor people in other countries combined with the greedy 'me first' attitude of the U.S. population is what is to blame.

So, are you doing your little bit to make things better or worse?

Well since I know warming and cooling are natural and will happen regardless of what we do or have done Ill just keep on doing what I do. :headbangin:

 

[billc]

And finally, before I go...sitting and typing in a location once covered by a mile high glacier wall...where did that glacier go again...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp

The emails--more than 1,000 of them--reveal a small cabal of scientists who, in the words of MIT's Michael Schrage, engaged in "malice, mischief and Machiavellian maneuverings." In an ironic twist, one of the frequent correspondents in this long e‑trail (University of Arizona scientist Jonathan Overpeck) warned several of his colleagues in September, "Please write all emails as though they will be made public." Small wonder why. It's being called Climategate, but more than one wit is calling them "the CRUtape Letters."

bloggers have been swarming over the material and highlighting the bad faith, bad science, and possibly even criminal behavior (deleting material requested under Britain's Freedom of Information Act and perhaps tax evasion) of a small group of highly influential climate scientists. As with Rathergate, diehard climate campaigners are repairing to the "fake but accurate" defense--what these scientists did may be unethical or deeply biased, they say, but the science is settled, don't you know, so move along, nothing to see here. There are a few notable exceptions, such as Guardiancolumnist George Monbiot, who in the past has trafficked in the most extreme climate mongering: "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," Monbiot wrote in a November 23 column. "The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. .  .  . I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them. .  .  . I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed.

As tempting as it is to indulge in Schadenfreude over the richly deserved travails of a gang that has heaped endless calumny on dissenting scientists (NASA's James Hansen, for instance, compared MIT's Richard Lindzen to a tobacco-industry scientist, and Al Gore and countless -others liken skeptics to "Holocaust deniers"), the meaning of the CRU documents should not be misconstrued. The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation. What they reveal is something problematic for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand. In the understatement of the year, CRU's Phil Jones, one of the principal figures in the controversy, admitted the emails "do not read well."

And once again, about all those scientists who agree on man made global warming or even warming in general...

The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia is not just an important hub of climate science, but one whose work plays a prominent role in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body that every five or six years since 1992 has produced a massive report on the international "consensus" in the field of climate science. This is the body typically said to comprise 2,000 of the world's top scientists, though there are many thousands more scientists working on aspects of climate change who do not participate in the IPCC process, many of whom dissent from the rigid "consensus" the process produces. One of the things the CRU emails prove is that the oft-cited figure of 2,000 top scientists is misleading; the circle of genuinely active scientists in the work of CRU and related institutions in this country is very small.

 

[granfire]

Well since I know warming and cooling are natural and will happen regardless of what we do or have done Ill just keep on doing what I do. :headbangin:

A rather sad statement.
(and not surprising billie liked it...)

 

[ballen0351]

A rather sad statement.
(and not surprising billie liked it...)

Equally sad to want to handicap American industry and punish the American people over a naturally occurring cycle of warming and cooling to which we have little control over.

 

[elder999]

And finally, before I go...sitting and typing in a location once covered by a mile high glacier wall...where did that glacier go again

It also used to be a swamp.......and volcanic......you need to get over that. :lfao:

This constant hyping of the "Climactic Research e-Mail Scandal," is kind of like being a birther,too, dude. You need to let it go. :lfao: :

First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.[SUP][103][/SUP] The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[SUP][104][/SUP] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.[SUP][105][/SUP]
The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.[SUP][106][/SUP] It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.[SUP][107][/SUP]
At the conclusion of the inquiry, Jones was reinstated with the newly created post of Director of Research