heck, here i go a again, posting in a thread i thought i had better leave alone for a while.. @R29k, no, i did not get fed up with my friend redroad at all. i know he feels very strongly about this issue, and i can only respect that. it just so happens that in this case i totally disagree with him. should be possible amongst friends, imho.. as i pointed out before, i feel this global warming issue is just a marketing scam, getting scientists funded and doing the earth no earthly good.. what you pointed out in posts #159 and #166 has my warmest sympathy. a little cynicism may well bring us a little sanity at times. what is eating me in this thread is the way the global warming issue is being associated with some very real pollution issues. and in my opinion these are off topic here.
thanks acrsn.. for putting into words what this is really all about.. i felt at a loss, sometimes, and this is the real mackoy, imho..
@acrsn and nodnar why don't you weigh in on this http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ord-heat-a-one-in-16-million-event/?mobile=nc let's start there unless you think it doesn't pertain to the discussion while I am wading through acrsn's Friday afternoon dump which realistically will be tomorrow before I respond.. Here this should be the kinda thing you hitch your wagon to http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...heat-wave-means-we-should-drill-for-more-oil/
Here read and enjoy Shocking ain't it, I wonder why ! Meanwhile in Space, since apparently USA is the whole world, weird things are happening.
I tell you what is shocking that you would present that as some basis to refute NOAA's temperature data and if you don't like that look up your own homeland temps. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...he-climate-science-deniers-will-be-in-charge/ this looks like a real gem for the Aussie's http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/ Good luck fending off their agenda
What you don't think the climate of a desert can change? and here's some info on Anthony Watts the author disputing NOAA's TEMPS from your link above http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ble-deniers-anthony-watts-surfacestationsorg/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...he-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
@acrsn the amount of what you posted is quite an undertaking and it is only because I respect your opinion that I sift through it to refute some of your claims so we can mutually benefit hopefully.. We are both in agreement on the circus of media and politicians and I would include ill informed and agenda driven bloggers who's claims are certainly suspect IMHO .. I will start here with this segment of your post because it illustrates the broader problem of how this becomes a circus .. Let me say that the mistake made by the NEW WORLD ATLAS is indisputable for me however to use the mistake to cast doubt with such broad strokes on the scientific community is also a mistake.. I hope you are not claiming that policy and law makers have made policy and law based on the mistaken claims of NEW WORLD ATLAS however if you are please provide proof of where that might be true.. What Ted Scambos went on to say in your link is Also I think you may find this article an interesting read http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/21/times-atlas-error-scientists-mobilise
@acrsn to hold out The U. S. Senate Minority Report as a "credible source" is naive at best given it was put forth by Senator James M. Inhofe.. look here http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582 paying close attention to where campaign contributions from industry came from.. Also a must read from Senator James http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...s-inhofe-quotes-bible-disprove-global-warming Also the Senate minority leader Senator Mitch McConnell at the head have a look http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003389&cycle=2012# paying close attention to where campaign contributions from industry came from..
This is a good read http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120720tribes_ask_for_action_on_climate_change/
@acrsn checking your sources for Bias is imperative in order to get even close to the facts .. but to hold them out before you have checked is part of the problem IMHO I will give input on each of your links from my perspective Your link http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion...l-columnists/regulated-to-stone-age-1.1340087 Alternative perspective http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...s-of-coal-burning-power-plants-on-navajo-land your link http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/we...fornia-epa-regulation-puts-trucking-companies My perspective comes from Source : http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/FreedomWorks Freedomworks funding by the Koch brothers who own Koch Industries makes the whole grass roots claims suspect given Koch industries In 2011, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States. My name for them is Fossil Fuel United.. So from my perspective you have one of the largest U.S. private fossil fuel companies weighing in on a regulation if undermined would only increase their profits..Hmm .. also note Top 5 Contributors, 2007-2012, Campaign Cmte to Senator James Inhofe http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582 Koch industries was #1.. I am going to stop here because I can see where this whole futile exercise is going .. It's sad for me .. Maybe another day
@acrsn I am asserting Senator Inhofe is bought and payed for and the information put forth in the report serves only the interests of those who bought and payed for it.. It is a contrived piece of propaganda that does very little accept advance the agenda of the Senators oil industry contributors IMHO Simply going out and collecting the views of people who agree with you proves nothing in my mind..
@All who have chosen to weigh in here.. from post #105 It seems at least from my perspective that I am the only one here that is willing to present something different from the "climate change deniers" in this thread of late that being said there certainly have been IMHO little effort by those representing that view to consider an alternative point of view.. I have taken the time to consider your points view.. How does anything ever get resolved with such hardened postures? You are asking me "So where exactly does 'plausible solutions' fit in?" Are you kidding me? with 54% of the U.S. in drought conditions and the majority of our corn crop poised to fail by changes in the climate we are now talking about plausible solutions necessary because of the very real effects of climate change. So where exactly does 'plausible solutions' fit in? I think that some solutions better fit in the next 6 mos. or the U.S. economy is in for a serious down turn and as a result the world economy will as well. The commons has to be planted with drought tolerant crops at the very least just to maintain moisture in the ground. I am asking those of you that seem to be so deeply entrenched on the "climate change denier" side of this issue why are you so deeply entrenched?
@redroad. i for one do not feel that i am `entrenched`.. and i know you have taken the time and trouble to look at the arguments of the opposition with an open mind.. nobody can deny that.. as for being the only one, you may well have your doubts.. the only one to speak out, maybe, but yours is not an opinion that no one shares, alas.. god knows it felt lonely for me in this thread sometimes, having an opinion that i could not adequately put into words, and i guess you must have felt the same at times. but what the heck, redroad, let`s take a point of view that is slightly more constructive.. we can heartily disagree, but in the end there are still some things we can agree upon. such as whatever we may think of this global warming issue, it is the good old earth we all live on, that we are concerned about. just my two centavos,,
@acrsn let us look at the reason why I said Why is it important to at least check the sources in the minority report and Senator Inhofe's record given he is ranking member on the Environment and Public Works committee and there is so much at stake.. Don't take my word for it look at his record http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582 Have a look at what the Center for Inquiry's Credibility project found when looking into the Minority Report. The PDF's to back up their statements are here http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp/news/senate_minority_report_on_global_warming_not_credible/ Results of the Credibility Project The Senate Minority Report lists 687 individuals with purported climate science credentials as skeptics of the scientific consensus on global warming. We assessed the credibility of the Senate Minority Report primarily by determining what fraction of these individuals could reasonably be considered to be active climate scientists, or scientists working in related fields. The best measure for this, almost universally agreed to in the scientific community, is to determine if these individuals publish articles on subjects somewhat related to climate science in refereed journals. Additional criteria were invoked, including attempts to determine the professional fields of the individuals on the list, as well as education degrees received. The data set we relied upon is accessible on the Credibility Project’s provisional website. Such a process is liable to small errors of interpretation. Nevertheless, after double-checking our assessment and following this procedure using the best available data, several striking results emerged. The results of our assessment are summarized as follows: Based on publications in the refereed literature, only approximately 10% of the 687 individuals could be indentified definitively as climate scientists. Only approximately 15% could be identified as publishing in fields related to climate science. Examples include solar physicists studying solar irradiance variation. For approximately 80% of these individuals, no evidence could be found that they had published research remotely related to climate science. Examples include purported meteorologists — the largest professional field found — who have no refereed scientific publications and whose job is merely to report the weather forecast. Almost 4% have made statements suggesting they largely accept the scientific community’s consensus view that global warming is occurring and that greenhouse gases appear to be a significant cause. (This is a tentative approximation, because these same individuals may have made other statements elsewhere. This nonetheless raises the question whether they should have been included on the Senate Minority Report’s list in the first place.) In light of these results, it is difficult to think this is a list composed primarily of publishing climate scientists. These results cast serious doubt on the Senate Minority Report’s credibility. Conclusions We conclude with some general thoughts. The first concerns the nature of science. The second concerns the question of numbers (of scientists) and how they are counted. Unfortunately, many Americans fail to understand that science does not give us absolutely certain answers to questions about nature. Instead it gives us probabilities. This does not mean, however, that policymakers should feel free to ignore scientific findings. In many cases these probabilities approach certainty. Thus, when scientists say it is “highly likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of the recent global warming, they are asserting that the observational evidence and scientific theory together make a highly compelling case for this conclusion, such that it cannot be dismissed. Although it is always possible that some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism might also play a role, no one has shown convincing evidence for one. As such, unproven claims that other mechanisms explain global warming should be viewed skeptically. When we consider the amount of research that has been accomplished since the seriousness of climate change became apparent two decades ago, the case for the scientific community’s consensus view on global warming becomes even stronger. This leads us to the question of counting numbers of scientists. One sometimes hears that only about 100 “technocrats” are responsible for the conclusions of the IPCC-2007 Science Report. That statement is patently false. If one reads that report, the number is closer to 2,000 scientists who published on climate science in the refereed literature. Their work was summarized by approximately 100 “technocrats,” with the approval of the relevant science study leaders. Thus, in comparing the IPCC-2007 Science Report and the Senate Minority Report, the proper comparison is between the approximately 137 scientists in the Senate Minority Report who might have published in the referred literature on topics directly related to climate science (i.e., 20% of 687) and the approximately 2,000 scientists whose work is summarized in the IPCC-2007 Science Report. This contrasts dramatically with the ratio of 687 implied climate scientists against approximately 100 “technocrats.” The conclusions we draw from our examination of the Senate Minority Report are preliminary. We have lacked the resources under current time constraints to check every detail in the report, or to contact all of the people who appear on its list. We intend to continue gathering data and will update our analysis accordingly. Nevertheless, based on the procedure described above, we have double-checked our results and are prepared to offer the following three conclusions: We think it is highly unlikely that a growing fraction of top climate scientists are becoming increasingly skeptical of human causation of global warming. We think that the title “Senate Minority Report” is technically appropriate, but understated. That report’s list does contain the names of some outstanding scientists, including at least one distinguished meteorologist. However, when weighted against the much larger number of equally outstanding climate scientists, there is no doubt where the great majority of experts in this field stand. Absent hard evidence that another likely candidate drives global warming, it is highly unlikely that man-made greenhouse gases do not play a significant and probably a major role in causing global warming. The authors of this Credibility Project assessment are not qualified to assess the engineering and economic questions associated with proposed legislation addressing climate change. However, we are disturbed by any document that may misrepresent the state of the global scientific effort to address this problem. Dr. Stuart Jordan is a retired (emeritus) senior staff scientist from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He formerly headed the solar physics branch at Goddard and is currently science advisor to the Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy. He has made many public and official presentations on global warming. Thomas O’Brien has an M.S in atmospheric and space science from the University of Michigan and is a production editor of the Astrophysical Journal for the Institute of Physics (U.K.). Source :http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp/news/senate_minority_report_on_global_warming_not_credible/ I will directly answer the questions you asked tomorrow over coffee
@acrsn to further elaborate on "bought and payed for" and your statement The significance of the minority report is that it was constructed to bolster a point of view to effect policy and to give credence to unsubstantiated claims from a movement who's roots are way to deep in corporate interests for my liking and who's methods to craft public opinion are well documented and serve largely to increase profits to a new profane level. The end result is it creates enough doubt in Joe public that he or she loses interest in the debate and the Status Quo is maintained where no real significant discussion can emerge.. I know you know that in our government the Congress controls how and where money is spent and hence which policy receives it's funding.. The scientific community receives it's research funding or not by the decisions made by Congress, private donations, and grants made by private trusts. These monies appear or disappear far more frequently these days based on a scientists willingness to support the views of a particular assertion of a politician. who is bought and payed for by his corporate campaign contributors, than what the facts and data bare out.. This has created an environment of illusion and mistrust where the average voter has little chance to wade through all this in order to come to an informed decision.. I believe we are in agreement on some if not all of this.. To answer your question In the context of the Minority report I assume you ask this question, the filter that I use to assess the statements or data from the scientific community by in large in order to determine their integrity is the same on either side of the debate and requires many devoted hours of looking at motivations, associations, and character including assessing their ability to make decisions for the good of all. I must admit that I am biased in this way through oral history, from elders, and observation in my own life time. I have come to accept that there are people who lie with little or no internal debate on the consequence that lie has on themselves and our global community hence no concept of "for the good of all" and those who have a deep need to course correct whenever they stray from the truth of who they are and can find joy equally in their own successes as those of another, hence fully embrace decision making grounded in "for the good of all".. next question My current position is related to your above question and my answer to it.. Short answer, wrong assessment of my current position and I apologize for not making it clearer.. History is full of examples where peoples have fostered the idea of conquest being the solution to achieve and justify their ideology.. To make this more palatable to the masses and to instill loyalty to that ideology, misinformation campaigns were born to get people to abandon their humanity and undermine what is the common good in order to achieve loyalty to that self serving ideology .. example: When the forces of conquest reached the shores of my home they painted the people they met with one broad stroke as heathens and savages in order to justify their actions of genocide.. There are times I throw my hands up and forget my humanity and my relationship to all and would call for finding the hatred gene and test all and move them to some distant place but I always come back to that most likely I would be included in that crew.. So the inward journey continues for us all to get to know ourselves and to find answers that support the common good..
blimey, redroad.. no need to throw your hands up in the air.. i know you feel strongly about all this, but for pete`s sake, let`s just consider the issue in a reasonable way.. folks like acrsn, or me, or R29k, all have got their own opinions. and they do not necessarily agree with yours. i guess you may conclude that you have made your point. you have taken the time and trouble to provide some links that show the rest of us exactly where you stand. which must have included some heavy searching.i can only take my hat off to you for that.. would it be too much to ask, i wonder, to leave it at that. where the scientists disagree, who are we to draw conclusions? [btw, i still think this whole global warming thing is a just scam..]