Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

Hey waldo! Remember when this was suppose to be a fact as well! Looks like your opinions are the only thing that really stinks now!

Link

Another day, another global warming myth shot down. Does it ever stop?!

great scurry about there Shady... but you should really spend time answering the questions you keep avoiding - get to it, hey! Or... would you like another teaser clue? (gentle reminder #6)

sorry to burst your bubble Shady Aside from that being a single study, that either stands on it's merits - or not - you've clearly missed the mark again. As TrueMetis highlights, did you fail to catch the article reference that states, "the study did not take into account the methane produced by the livestock or the carbon dioxide produced if soil erodes"... you know, the 2 most prevalent and significant GHGases. Your obvious zeal in scurry about 'cut&paste' obviously precludes you from actually investigating the overall significance of the study's focus... on nitrous oxide - you know, that GHGas that accounts for a mere 6-8 percent of overall AGW climate change... with the actual estimated level attributed to cow-grazing grasslands at between 1-2 percent of the overall GHGases associated with AGW climate change. So ya, bring on the cattle... just ignore the increased methane from your/their shit... and the increased CO2 from resulting soil erosion. Hee Haw Shady!

[jbg]

Waldo doesn't respect any of them. His mind is completely closed.

To true believers like Waldo, AGW is a religion more than a science.

[waldo]

To true believers like Waldo, AGW is a religion more than a science.

hey buddy, rather than dispute your minimalist drive-by, one might wonder what mizbeiach you preach from

[Bonam]

To true believers like Waldo, AGW is a religion more than a science.

Yup, I've definitely observed that too. That's why their endless preachings drive away people who would otherwise be receptive to the idea. No one wants to have an idea forcefully rammed down their throats like waldo and wyly are intent on doing. The more I read this thread (and others like it) the more sympathetic I find myself towards the people who argue against AGW, despite myself being convinced of the science behind global warming.

[Michael Hardner]

Hey waldo! Remember when this was suppose to be a fact as well! Looks like your opinions are the only thing that really stinks now!

Another day, another global warming myth shot down. Does it ever stop?!

I remember Ronald Reagan being the one who blamed cows for greenhouse gases ?

[waldo]

Yup, I've definitely observed that too. That's why their endless preachings drive away people who would otherwise be receptive to the idea. No one wants to have an idea forcefully rammed down their throats like waldo and wyly are intent on doing. The more I read this thread (and others like it) the more sympathetic I find myself towards the people who argue against AGW, despite myself being convinced of the science behind global warming.

that you would interpret 'spirited discussion' (from either side) as "preaching"... in any case, the favoured labeling from the denier side, the one observed sooooooo many times within these many MLW climate change related threads, is "religious zealotry". Of course, the irony is lost on them as it's the deniers who most fervently rely upon their blind faith trumping actual science. You can keep on, keeping on about the lack of respectful dialogue... as I said the last time you brought your related concern forward, that ship sailed long ago. Any initiative towards more reserved... respectful... exchange won't commence with a continuation of the "as is" Simple/Shady show. I find it equally ironic that your self-expressed scientific acumen doesn't occasionally take the intellectually dishonest Shady to task... either you can't 'lower yourself' to his degree of ineptitude, or you're a passive enabler - which is it?

[Bonam]

I find it equally ironic that your self-expressed scientific acumen doesn't occasionally take the intellectually dishonest Shady to task... either you can't 'lower yourself' to his degree of ineptitude, or you're a passive enabler - which is it?

I don't particularly care to debate scientific details in a setting such as this, where people convey their points using silly videos, misquoted statements, and the like. Moreoever, most posters here have no idea of the science itself, instead, they simply take statements of scientists, which they do not understand, and try to apply them, often not knowing how to do so in a meaningful way, relying on blogs and media pundits to interpret the science for them and then regurgitate it. This goes for both sides of the argument.

When I'm interested in discussing technical topics in a forum, I generally do so over on nasaspaceflight or sometimes on physicsforums.

[waldo]

I find it equally ironic that your self-expressed scientific acumen doesn't occasionally take the intellectually dishonest Shady to task... either you can't 'lower yourself' to his degree of ineptitude, or you're a passive enabler - which is it?

I don't particularly care to debate scientific details in a setting such as this, where people convey their points using silly videos, misquoted statements, and the like. Moreoever, most posters here have no idea of the science itself, instead, they simply take statements of scientists, which they do not understand, and try to apply them, often not knowing how to do so in a meaningful way, relying on blogs and media pundits to interpret the science for them and then regurgitate it. This goes for both sides of the argument.

When I'm interested in discussing technical topics in a forum, I generally do so over on nasaspaceflight or sometimes on physicsforums.

and yet... your slumming in these climate science related threads doesn't preclude you from throwing an occasional pointed barb over the level of discourse - interesting.

[Bonam]

and yet... your slumming in these climate science related threads doesn't preclude you from throwing an occasional pointed barb over the level of discourse - interesting.

Indeed it doesn't. You seem to be easily fascinated by my posting habits.

[waldo]

and yet... your slumming in these climate science related threads doesn't preclude you from throwing an occasional pointed barb over the level of discourse - interesting.

Indeed it doesn't. You seem to be easily fascinated by my posting habits.

apparently not as fascinated as you appear with the posts of others in threads you deign inferior to your knowledge, interests or engagement levels. Which is it then... slumming or selective engagement that allows you to dispense sage wisdom from above?

[Bonam]

apparently not as fascinated as you appear with the posts of others in threads you deign inferior to your knowledge, interests or engagement levels. Which is it then... slumming or selective engagement that allows you to dispense sage wisdom from above?

If you choose to be so awed by my "sage wisdom from above" that's up to you.

[waldo]

If you choose to be so awed by my "sage wisdom from above" that's up to you.

nope... I do not so choose - but don't hold back on slumming these threads... nor expressing your disdain for... "whatever you so choose". In turn, you may encounter like "sage wisdom" from... below" - and, in turn, your awe will be at your discretion.

[Handsome Rob]

here... chew on another Nobel Prize winners economic thoughts - NYT: Paul Krugman - Building a Green Economy

Is any of this green stuff really making a difference?

We smelt nickel utterly devastating local ecosystems, to put the batteries in hybrid cars with efficiency so poor that they don't further curb emissions. How much energy is required to make reusable shopping bags? What happens to the mercury in CFL's? How does Cap N' Trade reduce emissions when energy consumption is increasing?

In the last 10 years of the global warming frenzy, have we done one significant thing to reduce the destruction of natural environments?

But if one follows the money, it's pretty plain that a lot of people are making a pile of cash.

In the long run, to really even start at change, I'd offer that this graph has to change significantly:

Energy Consumption

[Bonam]

In the long run, to really even start at change, I'd offer that this graph has to change significantly:

Energy Consumption

Trying to force a drastic reduction in energy consumption would be both tyrannical and extremely damaging to the economy. The reality is that if our civilization is to progress, we will continue to use more and more energy.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

I would imagine that some posters will shoot the messengers.....but if read in its entirety, it's clear to see that we are nowhere near understanding if indeed there is anything abnormal at work with regards to Climate Change.

Link:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

I don't want to start reading skeptical websites... that is a long road to madness. I will read summaries of published literature. The sources I read always point to the literature.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't want to start reading skeptical websites... that is a long road to madness. I will read summaries of published literature. The sources I read always point to the literature.

Then I'll remove my post.....I thought you might have an interest.

[Michael Hardner]

Then I'll remove my post.....I thought you might have an interest.

I tend to follow the YouTube channel of a science journalist, who always refers to journals:

www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

[waldo]

I would imagine that some posters will shoot the messengers.....but if read in its entirety, it's clear to see that we are nowhere near understanding if indeed there is anything abnormal at work with regards to Climate Change.

Link:

http://scienceandpub...urface_temp.pdf

I don't want to start reading skeptical websites... that is a long road to madness. I will read summaries of published literature. The sources I read always point to the literature.

and rightly so - that SPPI piece of TV weatherman Anthony Watts crapola is not peer reviewed... and would never see the light of day within legitimate peer review. It has been completely and soundly trashed on many levels - and yet, Simple will still trot out his ruminations towards "station dropout" or "urban island effect" or "biases in the temperature record", etc., etc., etc. None of which Watts can provide any scientific foundation for. All of which has been soundly pushed back by actual peer-review study. And yet... Simple will toil away within the ruminants of denier world... never bothering to actually acquaint himself with the science that soundly refutes everything/anything Watts brings forward within that SPPI shinola.

c'mon... TV weatherman Anthony Watts!!! That's the guy to bring down the foundations of surface temperature records... notwithstanding the direct challenges and refutations that NASA/NOAA have presented back to Watts! Watts truly is the leader of the obtuse pack who rally to the denier cause.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I tend to follow the YouTube channel of a science journalist, who always refers to journals:

www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

That guy's awesome.

[Michael Hardner]

That guy's awesome.

Yes, highly recommended. Produced by a long-time science journalist who proves that the best jobs are done by volunteers.

[edited to add]Watch the whole series, though, to see that he's critical of Al Gore and the Green hype machine as well.

Just the facts.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes, highly recommended. Produced by a long-time science journalist who proves that the best jobs are done by volunteers.

[edited to add]Watch the whole series, though, to see that he's critical of Al Gore and the Green hype machine as well.

Just the facts.

I've linked a couple of his video's everyone seems to ignore them though.

[wyly]

and rightly so - that SPPI piece of TV weatherman Anthony Watts crapola is not peer reviewed... and would never see the light of day within legitimate peer review. It has been completely and soundly trashed on many levels - and yet, Simple will still trot out his ruminations towards "station dropout" or "urban island effect" or "biases in the temperature record", etc., etc., etc. None of which Watts can provide any scientific foundation for. All of which has been soundly pushed back by actual peer-review study. And yet... Simple will toil away within the ruminants of denier world... never bothering to actually acquaint himself with the science that soundly refutes everything/anything Watts brings forward within that SPPI shinola.

c'mon... TV weatherman Anthony Watts!!! That's the guy to bring down the foundations of surface temperature records... notwithstanding the direct challenges and refutations that NASA/NOAA have presented back to Watts! Watts truly is the leader of the obtuse pack who rally to the denier cause.

ever notice how many of the denier talking heads have a book to $ell, or touring speaking engagement$, or web sites with adverti$ments, newspaper columns...snake oil salesmen and they all know there are millions lining up to be fleeced...just like anne coulter or glenn beck, the more controversial and outrageous their claims the more money they make, it's not in their interest to be rational reasonable or objective....

[wyly]

I tend to follow the YouTube channel of a science journalist, who always refers to journals:

www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

potholer54...bookmarked, very good...

[Michael Hardner]

ever notice how many of the denier talking heads have a book to $ell, or touring speaking engagement$, or web sites with adverti$ments, newspaper columns...snake oil salesmen and they all know there are millions lining up to be fleeced...just like anne coulter or glenn beck, the more controversial and outrageous their claims the more money they make, it's not in their interest to be rational reasonable or objective....

You should separate those who make a living from gathering attention to themselves from those who make a living working in science, though. In other words, don't put legitimate skeptics such as Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark in with the others.

[wyly]

You should separate those who make a living from gathering attention to themselves from those who make a living working in science, though. In other words, don't put legitimate skeptics such as Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark in with the others.

I haven't...is either Christiansen or Svensmark on the lecture circuit? pushing a book? newspaper column? website?...not that I know of...I'm not including legitimate scientists I'm talking about pretend experts like Crichton, Christopher Booker and Watts...