Global warming?

[Fair&Balanced]

I dont think I avoided the issue of R&D and economic competitiveness in previous posts as you have done consistently.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I dont think I avoided the issue of R&D and economic competitiveness in previous posts as you have done consistently.

No, what I did was drop out of the conversation many posts ago.

[TheMercenary]

Transparency.... not.

Almost three months ago, PJMedia reported the story of a simple Freedom of Information Act request.

Our own Richard Pollock submitted a request to the Department of Defense to try and find out just who was on the four airplanes that flew to Copenhagen for the climate change conference in 2009, how much fuel they burned doing it, and how much it cost. The general thrust of the story was likely to have been “look how much fuel they used going to a conference to decide how much fuel we get to burn.”

Fifteen months later, Richard got back … four blank pages.

After making a few calls and rattling a few cages, we were told that there were many more documents but that the various reporting agencies hadn’t released them yet and a release was “forthcoming soon.”

Two months later still nothing.

So PJMedia got together with Judicial Watch, a non-profit watchdog group in Washington, D.C., and we sued the Department of Defense. The case was filed just last week.

According to the release announcing the lawsuit, Judicial Watch, on behalf of PJMedia, is asking the court to order the Air Force to conduct a search for “any and all responsive records,” set a specific date that PJMedia is to receive the requested documents, and provide PJMedia with a Vaughn index describing the records that are being withheld under claims of exemption.

In the release, Roger L. Simon, CEO of PJMedia took the administration to task:

What happened to the transparency that candidate Obama promised? It has taken almost a year for this administration to turn over a flight manifest and then that document was heavily redacted. The Obama administration has proven itself to be one of the most secretive administrations in history.

I spoke to Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, last week. He says there’s more to it than just the administration not wanting to turn over records. The dirty little secret is that the Air Force has a fleet of luxury jets they make available to high government officials and members of Congress. Fitton also said the records we’ve asked for are readily available.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pjmedia...nference-info/

[Undertoad]

I have written a comprehensive reply, and anyone interested in substance over sniping can ask me for the URL for it via PM.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Transparency.... not.

Let's face it. Obama is evil. Cheapshots and Glen Beck prove it.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I have written a comprehensive reply, and anyone interested in substance over sniping can ask me for the URL for it via PM.

Meaning no disrespect, but why not discuss it publicly?

I dont think it would be sniping to ask you to explain this further:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...Even by the 50s, government involvement in R&D was so unlikely that the March of Dimes was actually founded by FDR, but remained 100% privately funded as it solved the problem of Polio. Not one of those dimes came from government. They came from people giving dimes. That's just how it was.

Given that from the 1950s through the 1970s, the federal government funded more than 50% of R&D annually.



I think that is substantive and not sniping as is the fact that the total US R&D as percent of GDP has been flat for the last 20 years while Japan, Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany and even China (starting very far behind) are all increasing R&D spending as percent of GDP.

[Undertoad]

I am very interested in discussing this, which is why I am not doing it here.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I am very interested in discussing this, which is why I am not doing it here.

Discussing what? Government financed research? Global warming? Or the nasty politics and resulting subjective speculation that make discussion impossible?

[Spexxvet]

Look! Halley's Comet!

Psssssssssssssst
Now, while he's looking for the comet, someone copy and paste UT's response to this thread.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[infinite monkey]

Comet
It makes your mouth turn green
Comet
It tastes like listerine
Comet
Will make you vomit
So get some Comet
And vomit, today.

[Undertoad]

A return to thread topic

The usual prologue: I believe in global warming, I understand the theory of greenhouse gas and why it's plausible man has had a factor in this increase.

However, as a born skeptic, I have to apply that too, and the debate fascinates me. Let's test these ideas with the right kinds of questions, and as the questions are answered correctly, so the truth becomes evident. Or doesn't!

The most interesting skeptical question has become more and more prominent as time has gone by: Why hasn't there been any additional global warming since 1998? Why haven't climate scientists' models proven out?

One very emotionally unsatisfying idea now comes along: because of Chinese pollution.

(Reuters) - Smoke belching from Asia's rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur's cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland's University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fueled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

Sulphur allows water drops or aerosols to form, creating hazy clouds which reflect sunlight back into space.

"Anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role," the paper said.

This all just adds such a new layer of complexity over it all that the debate starts to be overwhelming.

It does raise many more questions, and now the whole notion of scientific consensus starts to weaken, because there is probably no consensus on the current observations. Climate science did not predict this. The models did not include all the necessary information.

At this point, one takeaway for me is that it's really amazingly hard to predict the future. It's one of our deepest desires, to know the future, to know the likely outcomes and to determine the greatest dangers. But it's also amazingly difficult to do.

Economics was a finer science when economists weren't goaded into predicting the future. Everything is so connected that any one science cannot see the broader picture. A new finding changes everything; just like a new invention changes everything, or a new idea changes everything. And all these things are so interconnected that even saying what happen next year, we could be quite wrong.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The most interesting skeptical question has become more and more prominent as time has gone by: Why hasn't there been any additional global warming since 1998? Why haven't climate scientists' models proven out?

One very emotionally unsatisfying idea now comes along: because of Chinese pollution.

Also, 1998 was a local spike. There has been warming since 1997 and since 1999.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

"Strategic posturing for nuclear winter."

If the planet warms up enough, we can set off a few conveniently placed nukes to cool things down again (pursuant to the Weapons of Mass Salvation Doctrine).

The counteracting effect of some pollution on global warming may be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It treats global warming symptomatically; but, doesn't address the underlying cause. The long term side effects indicate that reliance on symptomatic treatment should be limited. An ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by sexobon

An ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.

But people are saying that there is no prevention - it's a natural thing that's not our fault.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This all just adds such a new layer of complexity over it all that the debate starts to be overwhelming.

These variable were long ago added to conclusions that say without that (and other) pollution, then global warming would be much worse.

We know a worldwide reduction of sulfur in fuel has resulted in cleaner air. As a result, global warming has continued to increase as models predict. Most of these effects you are referring are already quantified as minor. Have even been tested in models as a long term solution to greenhouse gases with little success. All have been including in equation (simulations) that confirm global warming.

Variations in many models and research exist. But the overwhelming conclusion is same. Climate change due to mankind is increasing worldwide temperatures and increasing greenhouse gases. Even resulting in increased acidity in the oceans - also well defined in research.

This month's Scientific American discussed the previous world record for fastest global climate change - the PTEM period. At no other time, has global warming been so fast - 5 degrees C in .... 20,000 years. We are doing same climate change in only hundreds of years. That proves global warming does not exist?

Why do subjective denials have credibility? Citations with facts, research, and numbers demonstrate that every decade is warmer.

I don't know where you are getting your beliefs from. But numbers say global temperatures even in the past decade have increased significantly.

Numbers from six sources differ significantly ... a subjective conclusion. Vary so little as to be virtually same ... a conclusion that also includes numbers. Same chart with two completely different declarations. Which conclusion do you entertain? The subjective one? Or one based in science?