Global warming?

[infinite monkey]

Wouldn't opinions on differing subjects...um, differ?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

By making the standards for an incandescent bulb unattainable, it basically has the same outcome as a ban. Within the letter of the law, no they did not ban them, but in effect that is precisely what they wanted to achieve.

Government was demanding innovation from an industry that refused to implement technology available 35 years ago. Because those new light bulbs are so technologically old, the pigtail lights will probably be obsoleted in only ten years.

Some industries refuse to innovate unless force to. Cited was the radial tire. Industry conspired to keep that 1948 technology out of America until 1975. Cited is a domestic auto industry that was even given $100million to innovate - hybrids. And then quashed the technology. Leaving foreigners to again be 10 to 20 years more advanced.

It is an unfortunate fact that banks still will not use smart cards. Must increase service charges to protect dwindling profits due to their multiple decade fear of innovation.

Some industries refuse to innovate if not forced to. And then go crying to government for protection.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by tw

Prove me wrong. Post as any better educated persons does - with the reasons why and numbers. You never do.

More reports from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University about the fallacy of man-made global warming. (Along with the two times I posted the 900 papers saying your "consensus" is wrong.)

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/...ctics-are.html

[classicman]

NOAA also said ...

Between rising sea levels and increasing ocean surface temperatures, global warming will add to that vulnerability. Even so, population growth and shoreline development are what make us most vulnerable to hurricanes.

and

If tornado reports are biased by better reporting and detection, how would we know if global warming has affected U.S tornado outbreaks?

If we can’t detect a change in tornadoes themselves, says Hoerling, we might be able to detect a long-term change in the weather conditions that contribute to tornadoes. Key among those factors are the instability of the atmosphere, the amount of water vapor in the part of the atmosphere known as the planetary boundary layer, and vertical wind shear.

and

In their preliminary report on the analysis, the NOAA CSI team writes, “A change in the mean climate properties that are believed to be particularly relevant to severe storms has thus not been detected for April, at least during the last 30 years.”

That preliminary assessment, however, isn’t the same as saying “Climate change has had no impact on tornado outbreaks.”

just to quote a few.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Coign

More reports from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University about the fallacy of man-made global warming. (Along with the two times I posted the 900 papers saying your "consensus" is wrong.)

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/...ctics-are.html

Cherry picking reports that express a minority view, particularly if those reports/studies are not peer reviewed (as is the case with many of the denier "studies") does not make the broad consensus among nearly every national science organization in the world any less valid as a consensus.

Nor does pulling $50 billion cost out the air make it valid and ignoring the savings resulting from the benefits... or suggesting that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate the environment in the interest of the general welfare of the people.

[Undertoad]

You're both wrong: the post wasn't asking whether warming is occurring, but whether increased tornado activity is or could ever be a result of it.

[classicman]

The second quote in post #769 came as close to addressing that -as per my search on the NOAA site.

[Coign]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Cherry picking reports that express a minority view, particularly if those reports/studies are not peer reviewed (as is the case with many of the denier "studies") does not make the broad consensus among nearly every national science organization in the world any less valid as a consensus.

Nor does pulling $50 billion cost out the air make it valid and ignoring the savings resulting from the benefits... or suggesting that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate the environment in the interest of the general welfare of the people.

They are peer reviewed. Click the link for the blog post that states that and gives you links to the original papers. Denying that puts you in the wrong.

And cherry picking? 900 papers is cherry picking?

As for amounts, here is 2.5 billion in just the climate studies.

http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/...so-much-money/

Here is an article detailing 4 billion annually.

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarmi...-spending.html

Here is another 300+ million a year in ethanol subsidiaries.

http://www.congressionalchange.com/w...s-by-plant.pdf

The 50 billion number is taken from estimates in research, subsidiaries, and grants from 1990 to current date. This is all tax payer dollars just so they can tell us after 21 years of research, "um we don't know what causes climate change and we are not really sure how much the climate has changed. We THINK it may have warmed up by .7 degrees but we can't tell you if it will continue to get warmer or we might be going into an ice age soon."

That is not worth 50 billion dollars.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

They are peer reviewed. ... And cherry picking? 900 papers is cherry picking?

Peer reviewed like hundreds of papers that prove digitalis rectalitis in Danon Yogurt increases health. Like those hundreds of papers from the cigarette industry that proved smoking increases health. Peer reviewed by science - or by organizations set up using principles also used by the Nazis in 1930s.

Yes, a perfect example of cherry picking. Worse, you cannot even summarize what each paper says. Also says you are lying even to yourself. Your posts are devoid of numbers – a third symptom of one easily manipulated by propaganda techniques that Hitler also used to prove Jews are vermin. Same logic also proved Saddam had WMDs. Your entire reasoning: others said it was true; so it must be true. Classic 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

They jumped on Muller as if he would save their empty claims with numbers. Rushed him into Congressional testimony for political reasons. Never bothered to learn what he was saying because it was too scientific; involved numbers. They only heard half of what he said. Sufficient to prove he was going to dispute global warming. Were shocked when he testified before the House committee using science – that global warming does exist and has been well researched. Curious. Your reasoning is to ignore that reality. Is it ignorance or denial? Either way, your credibility is further diminished by another problem - no numbers. Not posting numbers and technical summary means you are insulting other’s intelligence.

'Brainwashing by soundbyte': X says it is so ... so it must be true. You don't even demonstrate a grasp of basic science concepts; only recite political spin so popular among extremists politicians (ie Limbaugh).

We suffered your reasoning previously in Global warming?. Tsonis’ simulation proved global *cooling* was ongoing. Posted because that is what spin told all to believe. Posted because what Tsonis said was completely ignored. It was too complex. Had numbers. So spin doctors dumbed it all down.

Tsonis' paper was about a new simulation technique that maybe only applies to weather changed anthropogenically. Credibility is in the mathematics of his simulation - not in the simulation's result. But those two sentences were too hard to grasp. You are doing same with 900 papers. Cited because what 900 papers said was completely ignored. It was too complex. Had numbers. So spin doctors dumbed it all down for you.

Your every post only says, “X told me what to believe; so it must be true.” A perfect example of 'brainwashing by soundbyte'. How does digitalis rectalitis improve digestion? Danon said it does citing hundreds of peer reviewed papers. So you also believe it. Using your logic, Danon must be honest.

The trends and reasons for global warming are obvious, well proven, and not disputed (except by spin doctors and extremists). Some details remain unknown for the same reasons we are also unsure of the moon's orbit. Somehow that spin proves global warming does not exist? According to your logic, we also do not know where the moon will be next month.

You could not insult educated people more with that Limbaugh logic.

[classicman]

Interesting that you cited my post after your emotional rant.

Interestingly enough, you were refuted with a post by xob then with this as the consensus of the global cooling in the 70's. here

Could the [cold] winters of the late 1970s be the signal that
we were returning to yet another ice age? According to many
outspoken climate scientists in the late 1970s, the answer was
absolutely yes—and we needed action now to cope with the
coming changes . . . However, some scientists were skeptical,
and they pointed to a future of global warming, not cooling,
resulting from a continued build up of greenhouse gases.
These scientists were in the minority at the time.

According to Horner (2007), the massive funding of
climate change research was prompted by “ ‘consensus’
panic over ‘global cooling’.” This was “three decades
ago—when the media were fanning frenzy about global
cooling” (Will 2008) or, as Will (2004) succinctly put it,
“the fashionable panic was about global cooling.” “So,
before we take global warming as a scientific truth, we
should note that the opposite theory was once scientific
verity” (Bray 1991).

“Just think how far we have come!” Henley said. “Back in
the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was
coming. They thought the world was getting colder. But once
the notion of global warming was raised, they immediately
recognized the advantages. Global warming creates a crisis,
a call to action. A crisis needs to be studied, it needs to be
funded . . .”

And I even followed with

Going against what so many others are claiming as factual and presenting an alternate causal relationship is commendable, if not heroic.
His quote;

carries more weight than many of the bandwagon jumpers who are riding the gravy train of the fearmongering of imminent global destruction and the end of the human race to line their coffers with BILLIONS of dollars.

Just one more question . . . what if HE is right?

Yes I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Someone has to ask the questions.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by tw

Peer reviewed like hundreds of papers that prove digitalis rectalitis in Danon Yogurt increases health. Like those hundreds of papers from the cigarette industry that proved smoking increases health. Peer reviewed by science - or by organizations set up using principles also used by the Nazis in 1930s.

Yes, a perfect example of cherry picking. Worse, you cannot even summarize what each paper says. Also says you are lying even to yourself. Your posts are devoid of numbers – a third symptom of one easily manipulated by propaganda techniques that Hitler also used to prove Jews are vermin. Same logic also proved Saddam had WMDs. Your entire reasoning: others said it was true; so it must be true. Classic 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

They jumped on Muller as if he would save their empty claims with numbers. Rushed him into Congressional testimony for political reasons. Never bothered to learn what he was saying because it was too scientific; involved numbers. They only heard half of what he said. Sufficient to prove he was going to dispute global warming. Were shocked when he testified before the House committee using science – that global warming does exist and has been well researched. Curious. Your reasoning is to ignore that reality. Is it ignorance or denial? Either way, your credibility is further diminished by another problem - no numbers. Not posting numbers and technical summary means you are insulting other’s intelligence.

'Brainwashing by soundbyte': X says it is so ... so it must be true. You don't even demonstrate a grasp of basic science concepts; only recite political spin so popular among extremists politicians (ie Limbaugh).

We suffered your reasoning previously in Global warming?. Tsonis’ simulation proved global *cooling* was ongoing. Posted because that is what spin told all to believe. Posted because what Tsonis said was completely ignored. It was too complex. Had numbers. So spin doctors dumbed it all down.

Tsonis' paper was about a new simulation technique that maybe only applies to weather changed anthropogenically. Credibility is in the mathematics of his simulation - not in the simulation's result. But those two sentences were too hard to grasp. You are doing same with 900 papers. Cited because what 900 papers said was completely ignored. It was too complex. Had numbers. So spin doctors dumbed it all down for you.

Your every post only says, “X told me what to believe; so it must be true.” A perfect example of 'brainwashing by soundbyte'. How does digitalis rectalitis improve digestion? Danon said it does citing hundreds of peer reviewed papers. So you also believe it. Using your logic, Danon must be honest.

The trends and reasons for global warming are obvious, well proven, and not disputed (except by spin doctors and extremists). Some details remain unknown for the same reasons we are also unsure of the moon's orbit. Somehow that spin proves global warming does not exist? According to your logic, we also do not know where the moon will be next month.

You could not insult educated people more with that Limbaugh logic.

That pretty much sums it up for me, although I wouldnt use the Nazi comparison.

There was no peer review of most denier studies. It is also a fact that many were funded by Exxon and other industry dollars.

The $50 billion you claim from research, subsidiaries (sic), and grants from 1990 to current date, also unsourced. And also ignores the benefits of not only climate research, but of subsidies and grants supporting clean air technologies to foster compliance with the Clean Air Act, which had benefits in productivity improvement, including improved health for millions, that outweigh the cost by as much as 10 to 1 (or more).

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

Interesting that you cited my post after your emotional rant.

Interestingly enough, you were refuted with a post by xob then with this as the consensus of the global cooling in the 70's. here

The so-called consensus of global cooling in the 70s was never a consensus in any where near the same terms, given that there was no comparable level of international research at the time.

Certainly the overwhelming majority of national scientific bodies of every developed nation in the world never signed on to a global cooling theory.

[classicman]

Did they even exist to near the same capacity 40 years ago?

[piercehawkeye45]

There was a period where many peer reviewed papers on global cooling were published but they were always greatly outnumbered by the number of peer reviewed papers published arguing global warming or a neutral stance. There was never a consensus of global cooling in the 1970's.

[classicman]

That seems counter to links previously posted.