Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

was full of shit.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51043

The global warming scam has been over for a long time, but there are still die-hard fanatics out there. Climate scientist James Lovelock is about to break the clue bat over their heads.

-
The end of the world folks were pissed at Obama for not talking about Global warming in his Earth Day Speech

Well, I think it's important to consider the difference between sticking to discipline and recognizing that the nature of the situation is that one cannot infer that humankind is causing an increase in temperatures and committing the equally grievous error by concluding that one can say humankind is NOT causing such an increase. Assuming the author of the article is accurately representing what the guy said...which is unlikely...that may be what the guy is getting at.

To me the problem with the Global Warmists has been that they overstate the certainty associated with their conclusions and projections. I think they would have been better served if they would have emphasized the difficulty of trying to do what they're trying to do and the fact that there is much uncertainty. They screwed up by saying things to indicate that their line was as certain as it gets in science.

But I also think all of us should recognize that the uncertainty issue cuts both ways. Be vigilant and keep watching.

JohnStOnge wrote:Well, I think it's important to consider the difference between sticking to discipline and recognizing that the nature of the situation is that one cannot infer that humankind is causing an increase in temperatures and concluding that one can say humankind is NOT causing such an increase. Assuming the author of the article is accurately representing what the guy said...which is unlikely...that may be what the guy is getting at.

To me the problem with the Global Warmists has been that they overstate the certainty associated with their conclusions and projections. I think they would have been better served if they would have emphasized the difficulty of trying to do what they're trying to do and the fact that there is much uncertainty. They screwed up by saying things to indicate that their line was as certain as it gets in science.

But I also think all of us should recognize that the uncertainty issue cuts both ways. Be vigilant and keep watching.

Fair enough.

JohnStOnge wrote:Well, I think it's important to consider the difference between sticking to discipline and recognizing that the nature of the situation is that one cannot infer that humankind is causing an increase in temperatures and committing the equally grievous error by concluding that one can say humankind is NOT causing such an increase. Assuming the author of the article is accurately representing what the guy said...which is unlikely...that may be what the guy is getting at.

To me the problem with the Global Warmists has been that they overstate the certainty associated with their conclusions and projections. I think they would have been better served if they would have emphasized the difficulty of trying to do what they're trying to do and the fact that there is much uncertainty. They screwed up by saying things to indicate that their line was as certain as it gets in science.

But I also think all of us should recognize that the uncertainty issue cuts both ways. Be vigilant and keep watching.

Yep. As soon as they (and their blindly loyal followers) began uttering the phrase "global warming...it's settled science"....they lost anyone with a brainstem.

Fair enough.

All I'm going to say is that if you think AGW science is purely statistical, you're barking up the wrong tree.

youngterrier wrote:All I'm going to say is that if you think AGW science is purely statistical, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Elaborate. I think the cause and effect inference is indeed purely statistical. I think it's actually hard for it to be any other way. But I want to hear what you have to say.

youngterrier wrote:All I'm going to say is that if you think AGW science is purely statistical, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Statistics is all there is when most of the predicted results are not occurring, and the ones that ARE occurring can be much more easily attributed to natural forces acting as they have for millions of years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk while driving on the interstate and brushing my teeth.

JohnStOnge wrote:

youngterrier wrote:All I'm going to say is that if you think AGW science is purely statistical, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Elaborate. I think the cause and effect inference is indeed purely statistical. I think it's actually hard for it to be any other way. But I want to hear what you have to say.

Well, the idea behind it is that historically speaking, the climate has changed naturally due to rises in temperatures due to carbon emissions (Green house effect) or by being closer to the sun for in these ways.
1) Solar activity
2) orbital activity
3) volcanic activity
4) Ocean currents

The climate changes when such things are changed in one of those ways. There is only possibly one other way, and it has something to do with cloud covering, but all data, evidence, etc has been inconclusive at best, or shown to have no effect at worst. If there is any other way, I'd like someone to enlighten me as to what hat would be.

Reasons 1-3 are in no way possible the fault of man. Ocean currents on the other hand, can be manipulated, changed, etc by the melting rate of the ice burgs and has been historically proven as such (as a force of nature of course). Also, carbon emissions are also proven to have a greenhouse effect (If I'm not mistaken the USAF proved this, or had a part in proving this). Also, it's no secret that Carbon emissions are up in the last 100 years, and it is also no secret that forest life is on the decline (so we have more CO2 in the air, and less trees to offset it via photosynthesis). The increase in heat on the planet, results in warmer temperatures, which results in the melting of ice bergs, which leads to climate change. Now, those facts alone do NOT conclusively prove that climate change.

Now comes in the statistics:

What makes one strongly believe it to be man made is the fact that in the last 100 years orbital, solar, and volcanic activity have been consistent, while statistically Carbon emissions are up, coinciding with temperatures, and there is data to support this. The data is often attempted to be discredited, but I have not read a legitimate criticism or exposure. Temperatures are climbing in the last 100 years at a constant rate especially in the last 20 or so years.

As for predictions, if you've read anything about the science (or what is considered "consensus"), the only thing believed to be consensus is that it is happening. As for predictions, no credible scientist makes claims that are taken seriously and I can't stress this enough. If you have ever read anything about the science, that is one thing you should take away from it.

Sadly, it is sensationalized by some scientists who are deeply concerned, because the uncertainty is unsettling because it could be inconvenient or even disastrous. I myself do not talk about predictions, because they are probably the most polarizing aspects of the whole situation.

People cite Time Magazine from the 70s, and no legitimate scientist made claims of the ice age. Time didn't extremely poor reporting on that one. There was no scientific journal saying anything of the sort. If you're going to discuss global warming and try to "expose" it, don't cite non-scientific peer-reviewed journals.

There's a lot of falsehoods and myths out there, and certain figures like to "debate" about it, but said experts don't have degrees and mislead or misrepresent in ways such as the Time Magazine article. It's much like creationists trying to discredit evolution, the deniers will gladly get on a podium and debate for a news segment, but when it comes to debating online and in scientific literature, they get exposed.

That last paragraph was mainly my commentary, but other than that, that's the "science"

This Liberal and fan of the environment has never adhered to much of the global warming stuff, as proposed. I think the world is going through a natural 10,000 to 20,000 year rotation in its climate and we are heading into the next Ice Age.

It's also possible that man is accelerating something that is going to happen anyway, in which case our energy is better spent figuring out how to deal with the end result rather than trying to delay the inevitable.

Cap'n Cat wrote:This Liberal and fan of the environment has never adhered to much of the global warming stuff, as proposed. I think the world is going through a natural 10,000 to 20,000 year rotation in its climate and we are heading into the next Ice Age.

I think it was caused by taking prayer out of school and letting the black man in (and my statement has about as much statistical weight and intellect backing it as Cappy's....)

youngterrier wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Elaborate. I think the cause and effect inference is indeed purely statistical. I think it's actually hard for it to be any other way. But I want to hear what you have to say.

Well, the idea behind it is that historically speaking, the climate has changed naturally due to rises in temperatures due to carbon emissions (Green house effect) or by being closer to the sun for in these ways.
1) Solar activity
2) orbital activity
3) volcanic activity
4) Ocean currents

The climate changes when such things are changed in one of those ways. There is only possibly one other way, and it has something to do with cloud covering, but all data, evidence, etc has been inconclusive at best, or shown to have no effect at worst. If there is any other way, I'd like someone to enlighten me as to what hat would be.

Reasons 1-3 are in no way possible the fault of man. Ocean currents on the other hand, can be manipulated, changed, etc by the melting rate of the ice burgs and has been historically proven as such (as a force of nature of course). Also, carbon emissions are also proven to have a greenhouse effect (If I'm not mistaken the USAF proved this, or had a part in proving this). Also, it's no secret that Carbon emissions are up in the last 100 years, and it is also no secret that forest life is on the decline (so we have more CO2 in the air, and less trees to offset it via photosynthesis). The increase in heat on the planet, results in warmer temperatures, which results in the melting of ice bergs, which leads to climate change. Now, those facts alone do NOT conclusively prove that climate change.

Now comes in the statistics:

What makes one strongly believe it to be man made is the fact that in the last 100 years orbital, solar, and volcanic activity have been consistent, while statistically Carbon emissions are up, coinciding with temperatures, and there is data to support this. The data is often attempted to be discredited, but I have not read a legitimate criticism or exposure. Temperatures are climbing in the last 100 years at a constant rate especially in the last 20 or so years.

As for predictions, if you've read anything about the science (or what is considered "consensus"), the only thing believed to be consensus is that it is happening. As for predictions, no credible scientist makes claims that are taken seriously and I can't stress this enough. If you have ever read anything about the science, that is one thing you should take away from it.

Sadly, it is sensationalized by some scientists who are deeply concerned, because the uncertainty is unsettling because it could be inconvenient or even disastrous. I myself do not talk about predictions, because they are probably the most polarizing aspects of the whole situation.

People cite Time Magazine from the 70s, and no legitimate scientist made claims of the ice age. Time didn't extremely poor reporting on that one. There was no scientific journal saying anything of the sort. If you're going to discuss global warming and try to "expose" it, don't cite non-scientific peer-reviewed journals.

There's a lot of falsehoods and myths out there, and certain figures like to "debate" about it, but said experts don't have degrees and mislead or misrepresent in ways such as the Time Magazine article. It's much like creationists trying to discredit evolution, the deniers will gladly get on a podium and debate for a news segment, but when it comes to debating online and in scientific literature, they get exposed.

That last paragraph was mainly my commentary, but other than that, that's the "science"

Good stuff YT.

This dude is 92 and even 20 years ago when the GW debate first got legs, I don't recall scientists speaking in absolutes. But perhaps Al Gore has a scientific degree to go along with his internet discovery. This is article is full hack. I would have expected something better from a blog entitled "powerful conservative voices".

Appaholic wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:This Liberal and fan of the environment has never adhered to much of the global warming stuff, as proposed. I think the world is going through a natural 10,000 to 20,000 year rotation in its climate and we are heading into the next Ice Age.

I think it was caused by taking prayer out of school and letting the black man in (and my statement has about as much statistical weight and intellect backing it as Cappy's....)

Man, bitch, just telling you what I've distilled from the work of other scientists out there. Don't buy it? Just move on.

youngterrier wrote: Now comes in the statistics:

What makes one strongly believe it to be man made is the fact that in the last 100 years orbital, solar, and volcanic activity have been consistent, while statistically Carbon emissions are up, coinciding with temperatures, and there is data to support this. The data is often attempted to be discredited, but I have not read a legitimate criticism or exposure. Temperatures are climbing in the last 100 years at a constant rate especially in the last 20 or so years.

This figure summarizes sunspot number observations. Since c. 1749, continuous monthly averages of sunspot activity have been available and are shown here as reported by the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, World Data Center for the Sunspot Index, at the Royal Observatory of Belgium. These figures are based on an average of measurements from many different observatories around the world. Prior to 1749, sporadic observations of sunspots are available. These were compiled and placed on consistent monthly framework by Hoyt & Schatten (1998a, 1998b).

The most prominent feature of this graph is the c. 11 year solar magnetic cycle which is associated with the natural waxing and waning of solar activity.

On longer time scales, the sun has shown considerable variability, including the long Maunder Minimum when almost no sunspots were observed, the less severe Dalton Minimum, and increased sunspot activity during the last fifty years, known as the Modern Maximum. The causes for these variations are not well understood, but because sunspots and associated faculae affect the brightness of the sun, solar luminosity is lower during periods of low sunspot activity. It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum and earlier periods may be among the principal causes of the Little Ice Age. The Modern Maximum is between 1900 and 1950.

While I don't deny that human activity has had an affect on the earth's environment, what you have is a significant increase in solar activity coincidentally timed with the beginning of the industrial revolution and population explosion on the planet.

BlueHen86 wrote:It's also possible that man is accelerating something that is going to happen anyway, in which case our energy is better spent figuring out how to deal with the end result rather than trying to delay the inevitable.

This is right on the money - we can't stop it, even if we agree to exactly what percentage of it we contribute to. Better spend time and money to learn to live with it than pretending that we have the power to stop it or reverse it.

AZGrizFan wrote:

youngterrier wrote: Now comes in the statistics:

What makes one strongly believe it to be man made is the fact that in the last 100 years orbital, solar, and volcanic activity have been consistent, while statistically Carbon emissions are up, coinciding with temperatures, and there is data to support this. The data is often attempted to be discredited, but I have not read a legitimate criticism or exposure. Temperatures are climbing in the last 100 years at a constant rate especially in the last 20 or so years.

This figure summarizes sunspot number observations. Since c. 1749, continuous monthly averages of sunspot activity have been available and are shown here as reported by the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, World Data Center for the Sunspot Index, at the Royal Observatory of Belgium. These figures are based on an average of measurements from many different observatories around the world. Prior to 1749, sporadic observations of sunspots are available. These were compiled and placed on consistent monthly framework by Hoyt & Schatten (1998a, 1998b).

The most prominent feature of this graph is the c. 11 year solar magnetic cycle which is associated with the natural waxing and waning of solar activity.

On longer time scales, the sun has shown considerable variability, including the long Maunder Minimum when almost no sunspots were observed, the less severe Dalton Minimum, and increased sunspot activity during the last fifty years, known as the Modern Maximum. The causes for these variations are not well understood, but because sunspots and associated faculae affect the brightness of the sun, solar luminosity is lower during periods of low sunspot activity. It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum and earlier periods may be among the principal causes of the Little Ice Age. The Modern Maximum is between 1900 and 1950.

While I don't deny that human activity has had an affect on the earth's environment, what you have is a significant increase in solar activity coincidentally timed with the beginning of the industrial revolution and population explosion on the planet.

In the last 50 years solar activity has been consistent, while temperatures have gone up. It coincides with carbon emissions more than solar activity.

edit: I knew that one of solar activity/orbital activity was 50 year deal as opposed to a 100 year deal, but I didn't feel that was important(I didn't feel like looking it up), and if you distrust my presentation, I apologize (I honestly didn't think anyone would check that particular descrepency, but I should have). The "hockey stick" as it is called shows a sharp increase in temperatures in the last 30 years or so while solar activity is consistent.

youngterrier wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
On longer time scales, the sun has shown considerable variability, including the long Maunder Minimum when almost no sunspots were observed, the less severe Dalton Minimum, and increased sunspot activity during the last fifty years, known as the Modern Maximum. The causes for these variations are not well understood, but because sunspots and associated faculae affect the brightness of the sun, solar luminosity is lower during periods of low sunspot activity. It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum and earlier periods may be among the principal causes of the Little Ice Age. The Modern Maximum is between 1900 and 1950.

While I don't deny that human activity has had an affect on the earth's environment, what you have is a significant increase in solar activity coincidentally timed with the beginning of the industrial revolution and population explosion on the planet.

In the last 50 years solar activity has been consistent, while temperatures have gone up. It coincides with carbon emissions more than solar activity.

Yes, it's been consistent. Consistently HIGHER than normal.

AZGrizFan wrote:

youngterrier wrote:
While I don't deny that human activity has had an affect on the earth's environment, what you have is a significant increase in solar activity coincidentally timed with the beginning of the industrial revolution and population explosion on the planet.

In the last 50 years solar activity has been consistent, while temperatures have gone up. It coincides with carbon emissions more than solar activity.

Yes, it's been consistent. Consistently HIGHER than normal.

Check the edit

youngterrier wrote:

What I see is a significant temperature rise since 1960 (50 years, get it?) that coincides EXACTLY with the increase in sunspot activity and being at the Modern Maximum during that period.

AZGrizFan wrote:

youngterrier wrote:

What I see is a significant temperature rise since 1960 (50 years, get it?) that coincides EXACTLY with the increase in sunspot activity and being at the Modern Maximum during that period.

but then sun spot activity goes down, while temperature goes up, in practically the opposite directions.

Coincidentally, CO2 activity has increase astronomically since the industrial revolution, coinciding with the temperature increases. In the last 30 years when the "hockey stick" was apparent, solar activity was down, while CO2 was up.

edit: I mean really, every thing is going in an upward motion until the 1960s, showing potential correlation of either, from then on CO2 and temperature clearly coincide to each other while sun spots diverge greatly. Just cover 1960 onward with your hand and you see no real problem, then from before 1960, and you see an apparent correlation with CO2 but certainly not sun spots.

youngterrier wrote:but then sun spot activity goes down, while temperature goes up, in practically the opposite directions.

I see temp leveling off (actually DROPPING, causing the trend line to level off).

AZGrizFan wrote:

youngterrier wrote:but then sun spot activity goes down, while temperature goes up, in practically the opposite directions.

I see temp leveling off (actually DROPPING, causing the trend line to level off).

You're ignoring the important parts. From 1860-1940, there's no clear distinction, from 1940 to 1995/2000ish the emissions go up, as does the temperature, while the solar activity does not increase, becomes somewhat inconsistent and perhaps decreases. From there, emissions still go up, and solar emissions go down, bringing it an apparent leveling out. That doesn't do anything for the argument against AGW. All it says is that solar activity has an effect on climate change as well, and I'm not doubting that , no one is saying that climate change is entirely man made. The AGW argument is that mankind is probably accelerating climate change and in fact has a direct relation to the increase in temperatures. The fact that it levels off doesn't support any argument against AGW, in fact, it shows that when solar activity is inverse to CO2 emissions, temperatures will level off. The difference is that we can't change solar activity, but we can change CO2 emissions. It thus follows that temperatures should drop or at least stay constant if we decrease CO2 emissions, and that chart implies as much and certainly doesn't suggest the opposite.

-
Never tire of pointing out the left’s hypocrisy.

Via Huffington Post:

San Francisco may be the greenest city in the nation, but some residents have a funny way of showing their appreciation.
On Earth Day, Marina district residents took their celebrations a little too far, leaving behind a Fort Mason disaster zone.
Our friends over at SFist alerted us to this heinous trashing:

Not to get all hippie-preachy or anything, but this is kind of an offensive amount of trash, right? Do normal and reasonable human beings not look at that mess and say, “. . . maybe we ought to like, I don’t know? Take some of this trash with us? To a trash can?” or “Maybe we should bring that coffee table back home?” We’ve seen our share of litter-y days in Dolores Park and some embarrassing trash pileups in Golden Gate Park, but leaving actual pieces of living room furniture is a whole new level of prickish park use.


Fort Mason wasn’t the only park to take a hit on Earth Day. Mission residents also woke up to a severely less beautiful Dolores Park this morning.

One resident told Mission Local, “I’m not sure who angers me more, the people who came to enjoy the park on Saturday and left this mess or Rec and Park, which continues to ignore the complaints and warnings of neighbors about the park’s abuse.”