Global Warming

[Mills 0]

I'm sorry that you chose to get offended by that. This is a internet poker forum. Get over it, don't worry about it, it's not a big deal unless you make it one.edit:Also, I don't have any sort of problem with you, so posting that was also my way of telling you that I wasn't trying to pile on or anything.

I wasnt offended by it at all, I was making a joke.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I wasnt offended by it at all, I was making a joke.

Bad read on my part I guess. Carry on.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

One day the realization that most of this green technology is completely dependent on the items they are replacing to save them when they fail.

Electric zambonis at OlympicsWhat's funnier is that they had to bring the gas powered ones in by air, which used more fuel than what would've been saved with the electric zambonies.Note: I made up that statistic.

[SCYUKON 0]

Also, this article (from the same site as I posted above) is funny and informative:http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Dunnin...ate-debate.htmlFor the record, due to recent events, I'm making an effort to better understand climate science so I can make better informed responses. I've found the following sites to be helpful so far, and I'll add to the list if I find other sites that are worthwhile:http://www.skepticalscience.com/http://climateprogress.org/

www.climategate.com

[SCYUKON 0]

Here's a wild ideaInstead of feverishly cherry picking through an article you don't understand resulting in you having to make a tacit mea culpa later on, why not just admit that you dont fully understand the ins and outs of climate change research and reserve judgement untll you have actually studied what you are arguing against?I mean, really, why are you so staunchly anti-climate change in the first place?

For the record, I apologized to VB as I confused/misused the phrase "Phil Jones has changed his tune". It degenerated from there into me thinking VB was trying to mind**** me and him thinking likewise (I think).This does not change my opinion, or position, that I believe that Phil Jones' statements in the article represents an about face for the IPCC crowd, of which he is part - I still believe they do. But nowhere on the record does Phil Jones say as much. VB and Yorkie are free to disagree with me, that is their right. But I owned up to the fact that my lead in statement to the link was not correct, which is what they called me on correctly. Simple as that.And if you care to do some research on your own (i.e the search engine on this forum), I have done a fair bit of research into the IPCC reports, and my skepticism (which I have shared in this forum) about the lack of model calibration and hence lousy predictive models has been borne out by certain of the hacked IPCC e-mails (again, just my opinion). As to why I am so "staunchly anti-climate change", I did my own research and what I found led me to believe that what the world was being fed by the IPCC was a pile of crap. I still do. Time will tell if I was right, but I believe (again just my opinion) that recent events are confirming my suspicions. Simple as that.That and the fact that I pay close to $50k in taxes per year, so I am none too excited about additional costs related to Cap and Trade.

[85suited 0]

That and the fact that I pay close to $50k in taxes per year, so I am none too excited about additional costs related to Cap and Trade.

time to be patriotic and pay your fair share buddy

[SCYUKON 0]

time to be patriotic and pay your fair share buddy

ok, pass the lube....

[Mills 0]

For the record, I apologized to VB as I confused/misused the phrase "Phil Jones has changed his tune". It degenerated from there into me thinking VB was trying to mind**** me and him thinking likewise (I think).This does not change my opinion, or position, that I believe that Phil Jones' statements in the article represents an about face for the IPCC crowd, of which he is part - I still believe they do. But nowhere on the record does Phil Jones say as much. VB and Yorkie are free to disagree with me, that is their right. But I owned up to the fact that my lead in statement to the link was not correct, which is what they called me on correctly. Simple as that.

Right, but there's more to it than whether or not Phil Jones changed his tune. More to the point is why you thought he had changed his tune. They (VB and LLY) pointed out that just because there was no significant temp change from 1995 onward, does not mean there has not been a significant temp change in the long run. You failed to take into account the concept of sample size and thus, made an incorrect assumption. Which makes me wonder how many of your climate change assumptions are incorrect based on similar misunderstandings.

[SCYUKON 0]

Right, but there's more to it than whether or not Phil Jones changed his tune. More to the point is why you thought he had changed his tune. They (VB and LLY) pointed out that just because there was no significant temp change from 1995 onward, does not mean there has not been a significant temp change in the long run. You failed to take into account the concept of sample size and thus, made an incorrect assumption. Which makes me wonder how many of your climate change assumptions are incorrect based on similar misunderstandings.

Meh. The models are crap. The base data has been lost, the rigged data exposed. I even took a look at some of the links that Yorkie provided and those folks (in the comment sections) are now turning on Phil Jones for giving such a bumbling interview. So save your "basic science" lecture please. I see a religion that is starting to crumble very badly. Just my opinion, mind you. But I like the odds at this point.

[SCYUKON 0]

Cherry picking again here Mills. Here the worlds largest coal company is taking the EPA to court. Can't wait to see how this turns out.Anyways, here is the link in case I don't understand or misinterpret or misrepresent what is going on:http://www.climategate.com/worlds-biggest-...fraud#more-4213

[Mills 0]

Meh. The models are crap. The base data has been lost, the rigged data exposed. I even took a look at some of the links that Yorkie provided and those folks (in the comment sections) are now turning on Phil Jones for giving such a bumbling interview. So save your "basic science" lecture please. I see a religion that is starting to crumble very badly. Just my opinion, mind you. But I like the odds at this point.

Even if all of that were true, you still didnt answer the basic charge of taking a 15 year sample size of the earth not warming and trying to say that is proof that global warming isn't taking place.please don't turn into one of those "science is just another religion" people, it makes you sound nuts

[SCYUKON 0]

Even if all of that were true, you still didnt answer the basic charge of taking a 15 year sample size of the earth not warming and trying to say that is proof that global warming isn't taking place.please don't turn into one of those "science is just another religion" people, it makes you sound nuts

Weill if AGW is such a catalyst in global warming, why has it not warmed even more in the last 15 years then? How does the lack of warming reconcile with the NASA position that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record? Were 1995 - 1999 that cold???? Has AGW gone down that much in the last 15 years if it is so causal in Global Warming? Or is this where the need to switch the term to climate change comes in to explain the lack of warming.The apparent admission by Phil Jones (note I have to say apparent because the warming crowd is not saying that Phil Jones was fed loaded questions, similar to "When did you stop beating your wife?") is that there have been other periods just as warm as the recent warming period (which apparently ended in 1995), a piece of information that was originally put forth by the IPCC in early reports but in later reports later brushed aside (talking about the Medieval warming period here), is further proof to me that AGW (in my opinion) is a pile of crap.And then I see Al Gore buying a condo on the water in San Francisco, a place he claimed in An Inconvenient Truth would be underwater, and I get spam in my inbox about `How to make money in Cap and Trade`. This also screams `Pile of Crap`theory to me.Do you not wonder about any of this?Sorry, I am not nuts -I am not just an AGW lemming willing to jump off a green cliff.

[Mills 0]

And then I see Al Gore buying a condo on the water in San Francisco, a place he claimed in An Inconvenient Truth would be underwater, and I get spam in my inbox about `How to make money in Cap and Trade`. This also screams `Pile of Crap`theory to me.

You do realize that what Al Gore does or does not do has no bearing on whether global warming is a fact or not, right?I'll tell you what I wonder about, why people think that a few strangely worded emails or the fact that it was cold on one particular day constitutes enough evidence to invalidate 25+ years of climate researrch...

[vbnautilus 48]

Weill if AGW is such a catalyst in global warming, why has it not warmed even more in the last 15 years then? How does the lack of warming reconcile with the NASA position that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record? Were 1995 - 1999 that cold???? Has AGW gone down that much in the last 15 years if it is so causal in Global Warming? Or is this where the need to switch the term to climate change comes in to explain the lack of warming.The apparent admission by Phil Jones (note I have to say apparent because the warming crowd is not saying that Phil Jones was fed loaded questions, similar to "When did you stop beating your wife?") is that there have been other periods just as warm as the recent warming period (which apparently ended in 1995), a piece of information that was originally put forth by the IPCC in early reports but in later reports later brushed aside (talking about the Medieval warming period here), is further proof to me that AGW (in my opinion) is a pile of crap.

Please re-read LLY's post regarding this issue. You seem to not understand how statistics work. You should understand that we can have a discussion about what the truth is -- weighing the quality of evidence, trading interpretations -- we can disagree without resorting to accusing the other side of being a "religion". This argument, as long as we stay governed by reason and evidence is part of the process of science. I know that you are angry about what you perceive to be a fraud, but you have to be coldly rational and objective about the evidence here if you want to find the truth.

[85suited 0]

but you have to be coldly rational and objective about the evidence here if you want to find the truth.

please explain the above to the global warming nuts

[vbnautilus 48]

please explain the above to the global warming nuts

I see you've really embraced the spirit of my post.

[SCYUKON 0]

Please re-read LLY's post regarding this issue. You seem to not understand how statistics work. You should understand that we can have a discussion about what the truth is -- weighing the quality of evidence, trading interpretations -- we can disagree without resorting to accusing the other side of being a "religion". This argument, as long as we stay governed by reason and evidence is part of the process of science. I know that you are angry about what you perceive to be a fraud, but you have to be coldly rational and objective about the evidence here if you want to find the truth.

Well the reason I accuse the other side of being a religion is that up til now, in my opinion, formed from researching the (in my opinion) lousy predictive models, I did not see any solid proof of what was being put forth by the IPCC. Hence my, and others, thought that only blind faith, not cold hard objective facts, was behind the AGW theory. At any rate, happy not to use the R word and stick to facts, as we are going to be seeing a lot of fact finding going on in the future.So on that note, I think you will agree that it is a fact that Phil Jones, and Michael Mann, key IPCC figures, are now under investigation. There must be sufficient evidence somewhere for this to be happening.I don't see any Deniers (oops, I should call us the "other side") like Lord Moncton or Steve MacIntyre getting investigated for refusing to comply with freedom of information requests. These folks have been after the "cold hard facts" as you suggest for many years and have been stifled by the IPCC crowd. That has to give you some pause, I would hope. At any rate, I really hope the US congress does call for an investigation into all of this, so we can get to the bottom of what is going on. I really hope there is not a whitewash for the sake of saving political face. But after so many years of hearing "the science is settled", and Yorkie correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you were once part of this crowd if I were to look at past posts, to now find out that it likely was not, after all the stonewalling, both pisses me off and makes me feel good that my suspicions aka gut feel were correct.

[vbnautilus 48]

But after so many years of hearing "the science is settled"

from whom? this phrase was created by global warming oppositionists. who is purported to have said that?

[85suited 0]

from whom? this phrase was created by global warming oppositionists. who is purported to have said that?

is your question "who stated the science is settled?" if that is your question the answer is Al Gore on March 21, 2007 to the House Energy committee and the Senate Environment committee.

[Balloon guy 158]

from whom? this phrase was created by global warming oppositionists. who is purported to have said that?

That guy..over at that thing

[vbnautilus 48]

is your question "who stated the science is settled?" if that is your question the answer is Al Gore on March 21, 2007 to the House Energy committee and the Senate Environment committee.

That was my question, yes. Al Gore is not a scientist, so if that's who SCYUKON is railing against, that seems quite silly. But at any rate I cannot find any evidence that Al Gore actually used that phrase.

[85suited 0]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642Al Gore quote

[85suited 0]

Dr Kurt M. CuffeyDepartment of Geography(and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences)University of California, Berkeley507 McCone HallBerkeley, CA 94720-4740"Mounting evidence has forced an end to any serious scientific debate on whether humans are causing global warming. This is an event of historical significance, but one obscured from public view by the arcane technical literature and the noise generated by perpetual partisans....But now, after this summer of 2005, the serious scientific debate about global warming has ended. There is now no reasonable doubt that atmospheric pollution is causing global warming, and this warming is strong enough to have serious consequences in the next century"

[85suited 0]

That was my question, yes. Al Gore is not a scientist, so if that's who SCYUKON is railing against, that seems quite silly. But at any rate I cannot find any evidence that Al Gore actually used that phrase.

SO railing against a guy who is pushing a multi trillion dollar fraud (in our opinion) is silly

[SCYUKON 0]

Thanks for doing some legwork for me 85suited. VB - did 85suited really need to have to dig those quotes up for you to admit that the AGW crowd has been echoing this position. You can't really say with any honesty that you did not realize this is the mantra that has been put forth on a continuous basis by the AGW crowd, can you?Can we get back to the facts, as you requested? I am still curious as to your response to the fact that Phil Jones and Michael Mann are under investigation. Does that not spur any curiousity in you?? Do you have any theories as to why they ignored freedom of information requests? Does it not bother you to see how flimsy the source was that exposed in the glaciergate scandal? You don't think this is all something made up by skeptics do you? You do agree that this is all factual, right?