Feds finally starting to act on global warming

Originally Posted By YourPalEd

The reason all republicans are criminals is their entire lives are built on a pyramid scheme.

They polute the air without consequence. They buy, destroy, without consequence, cause there are always more things they can wreck in the world, and lie about.

Republicans truely are scum, they are your enemy.

 

Originally Posted By tiggertoo

<<Never sell anyone short because of their education level...now of course I do believe more formal education helps in many ways...but it is does not by default, because one attended, make them any smarter necessarily than the next person.>>

It isn’t about being smarter per se, but about the cache of knowledge within a certain field which Beau has been proven not to have. Sometimes the claims he has made have been so far off scientific foundations you have to wonder how he actually thinks he’s right. Seriously, if I showed some of these posts to the gentlemen in the lab (some of these folks are double PhDs), they would be hardily laughing. It isn’t THAT he lacks knowledge in the field, but that he displays it so prominently.

Now, it would be perfectly fine were he to admit he hasn’t managed to follow information presented, but to ignore it and continue to repeat the same lines over and over gets extremely annoying (as you well know in your altercations with him, vbdad) and leaves one wondering about his intelligence, whether true or not.


<<As I stated before, you can probably find people who would still dispute that cigarrettes cause cancer.>>

Ironically, Mr. Milroy, the author of junkscience.com (Beau’s favorite site) is a former Phillip-Morris lobbyist and I seem to recall he has suggested just that. I’ll see if I can find a link, but it was a few years ago.

In the meantime, here’s a little piece on Mr. Milroy:

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy" target="_blank">http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind
ex.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy</a>


<<I produced a link to a very detailed study that proves CO2 gas is not causing the earth to warm up as you say it is. I provided proof that the models they use today to push man made global warming are flawed.>>

You see Beau, some of us stick with REAL scientific organizations, those that tend to be unbiased observers of the physical world (NOAA, NASA, etc…). Junkscience.com and Mr. Milroy are political hack-jobs who use advocacy science to their benefit. Junkscience.com is, in fact, junk science. Likewise, I view Al Gore’s movie in a similar light. I will say it over and over again, POLITCS AND SCIENCE TO NOT MIX! Your site proved nothing except that you have a serious flaw in your fact finding methodology.

You will have to do better than an advocacy site to prove your point, Beau.

And, I’m still waiting for a response to my previous posts, in this thread and others.


<<Also, if I have 17000 or more scientists backing me up how many do you have?

Until you can produce a petition or some other list of scientists that are MORE than 17000 you are in the kook minority.>>


LOL! Oh brother. Here we go again.

First, the 17,000 and only increased to a mere19,700, of which only 17,800 have been independently verified. Wow! Huge difference!

Second, only a relative few are true scientists in the field: “Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.†And another relative few have scientific credentials: “Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.â€
<a href="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm" target="_blank">http://www.oism.org/pproject/s
33p357.htm</a>


Third, again there are approximately 600,000 natural scientists in the U.S., 17000 is only 2.8% of that total. Just for laughs, let’s go with 19700; 19700 is only 3.2% of that total. Your petition does not reflect the vast majority (97%) of the scientific community. Nice try though.

I could continue if you wish, but I’ve already stated the numerous flaws here. See the Intellectual Conservatives thread for further reading (around post 200--):

<a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-79086-P-21&Refresh=0927134142" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de
fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-79086-P-21&Refresh=0927134142</a>

 

Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger

Wikipedia article on Steven Milloy:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S
teven_Milloy</a>

Quote:
Steven Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris[1] and ExxonMobil.[2] From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Milloy runs the website Junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what he alleges to be false claims regarding global warming, DDT, passive smoking and ozone depletion among other topics.[3] His other website, CSRWatch.com, is focused around attacking the corporate social responsibility movement. He is also head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with tobacco executive Tom Borelli, who is listed as the secretary of the Advancement of Sound Science Center, a nonprofit Milloy operates from his home in Potomac, Maryland.

In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from the Phillip Morris company since the early 1990s, and that non-profit organizations controlled by Milloy have received large payments from ExxonMobil. A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

Junkscience.com and Mr. Milroy are political hack-jobs who use advocacy science to their benefit>>>

I found this on New Republic...
<a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606" target="_blank">http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i
=20060206&s=thacker020606</a>

Excerpt:
The University of California at San Francisco maintains a database of seven million tobacco industry documents made public as part of the 1998 settlement between tobacco companies and state attorneys general. According to those documents, Milloy's relationship to big tobacco goes back at least to March 1997, when he took over as executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (tassc), a front group established in 1993 by Philip Morris and p.r. firm apco Associates "to expand and assist Philip Morris in its efforts with issues in targeted states." (Fumento was on the organization's advisory board.) Under Milloy, tassc sought to debunk a range of scientific theories that ran counter to the conservative viewpoint, from the dangers of breast implants to the need for stricter clean air standards. Philip Morris remained heavily invested in these efforts. A 1997 Philip Morris budget report includes a line item granting tassc $200,000. As executive director, Milloy also reached out to other allies within the industry. For instance, in September 1997, he sent a letter to Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation soliciting $50,000: "The grant will be used to further tassc's efforts to educate the public, media and policymakers on priorities in public health," he wrote.

and later...
Fox News can't be expected to dig through the tobacco legacy documents every time one of its columnists writes about smoking issues. But, as far as Milloy, Fox News should be judged the same way tobacco companies were during their trials: What did they know, and when did they know it? Fox News has certainly known since last spring that money from ExxonMobil was going to Milloy's home-based charities.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<Now, it would be perfectly fine were he to admit he hasn’t managed to follow information presented, but to ignore it and continue to repeat the same lines over and over gets extremely annoying (as you well know in your altercations with him, vbdad) and leaves one wondering about his intelligence, whether true or not. >>

I havn't ignored anything. I have taken your theory that you can't prove, and have given you links to why it is totaly wrong. Man made global warming is junk science. It's fantasy, it's a scam, it's a way to get billions of dollard in funding.

All the groups you and jon like to push as " experts " have one thing in common. The more they say man made global warming is real, the more MONEY they get for more flawed, biased research.

You guys like to say one side is political yet you won't even admit global warming is the new political movement of the far left who always glom onto a " cause " until their " cause " is debunked.

I am still waiting for a list of scientists tigger that you have put together that say man made global warming is real. I want names, thousands of them who will go on record and say man is making hte earth hotter by producing to much CO2 gas.

Once we get those names, lets just see how " unbiased " these people are.

I will be waiting.

In the meantime, why not take the link I gave you and debunk it if it's such a joke.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"I have met a lot of very intelligent people who have no common sense and are not very knowledgable. "

Oh this is so very true. I have known some PhDs that really did not know to come in out of the rain.

Really, though, you have someone here who has disdain for education and for those who understand the things being talked about in a way that he'll never be able to follow.

This is not a mensa member who didn't go to college. This is someone who can barely eke out a grammatically correct sentence.

Tiggertoo has mentioned it already, so I don't need to go into it further, but really, what it shows is how sad our state of education is in this country. In many ways.

He talks about the "groups we like to push," like the National Science Foundation. And yet he does not understand that there are no other groups. This is it. These are the people who deal with scientific issues. It's just sad that the state of understanding is so weak in so many people.

Ed might be a kook, but at least he has some smarts. That's the big difference here.

 

Originally Posted By tiggertoo


<<I havn't ignored anything. I have taken your theory that you can't prove, and have given you links to why it is totaly wrong. Man made global warming is junk science. It's fantasy, it's a scam, it's a way to get billions of dollard in funding.>>

That is utter BS. First, everyone here knows how you ran away from the answering any of the contentions I presented in both the “Anyone hear this global warming update?†and “Intellectual Conservative†threads, and this thread as well. Go ahead and believe what you will. Everyone here knows full well what is taking place. But I’m sure the kaliope will continue to play on….and on….and on.

Second, do you really think that if it wasn’t for global warming that “billions†of dollars wouldn’t be granted to other scientific endeavors? If you believe this, you are on crack. There is so much climatological, atmospheric, and metrological information we simply do not know and the cash will continue to flow.


<<All the groups you and jon like to push as " experts " have one thing in common. The more they say man made global warming is real, the more MONEY they get for more flawed, biased research.>>


You mean NASA, NOAA, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the US Geological Service, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (part of the DoE), the EPA, the US Global Change Research Program (official US government organization), etc… are now somehow liberal global warming hack organizations? *lol* Yeah…umm…you continue to prove my point perfectly! Keep going Beau…the more of a fool you make of yourself, the more fun this gets!

All my sources are the leading organizations in the field and most are official government organizations. They are not advocacy crap like you try to push.

BTW, just so you or anyone else doesn’t shift into hyperbole mode, my contention (in brief) is that there is good science which explains how CO2 affects our atmosphere; however, there is debate over how much on a macro level. Cyclical effects are quite an enigma to date and we cannot discount natural effects simply because they aren’t understood fully. And CO2 and greenhouse gasses are good science, even Mr. Milloy admits that.


<<You guys like to say one side is political yet you won't even admit global warming is the new political movement of the far left who always glom onto a "cause " until their " cause " is debunked.>>

Sadly, it has become a tool of many on the left. However, this has nothing to do with the real scientists who are doing real work in the field of climatology. Only when you speak to “politically minded†people, does it become political. But you have probably never actually sat in on a scientific roundtable, so you wouldn’t know that would you? I’ll give you a hint though, there is no mention of politics whatsoever—only data, analyses, and debate. They leave the political hackery and all that BS to politicians.


<<I am still waiting for a list of scientists tigger that you have put together that say man made global warming is real. I want names, thousands of them who will go on record and say man is making hte earth hotter by producing to much CO2 gas.>>

I don’t need a list. I stand by the credentials of the organizations I linked to. They are more powerful than any list you or I can ever create, and much more credible than some loony petition.

Your little petition is utter trash and I’ve proven that time and time again. 17,000 is less than 3% of the scientific community; a figure you can’t seems to wrap yourself around. Get me a list with…oh, say… 200,000 or more, then we’ll talk. Until then, you have nothing to crow about, your 17,000 are pennies in a bucket.


<<In the meantime, why not take the link I gave you and debunk it if it's such a joke.>>

You see Beau, I know your shtick inside and out. You play this little game all the time. In this case, you presented a few different links on global warming, all of which I answered in detail. Yet all you do is play on without so much as a response to the refutation I presented. To you, it is as if as if I never wrote anything. You simply wait for the thread to die and repeat the same BS over again. I’ve never actually seen you contend with my posts or links in detail as I do with yours. Yet, here you are saying “Why don’t you debunk this one� Do you not see a double standard here? That you are challenging me to debunk this one while you cowardly avoid any and all links that I presented, including those from NASA, NOAA, and the many sites I linked to? Come on, be a man. Grow some testes and get into the data. You always run around claiming this and that, but take little to no time to really get your hands dirty in the matter. You’d rather use the juvenile and intellectually lazy method and just call whatever you disagree with a bunch of bunk without so much as a whisper of actual input. That’s just pathetic any way you look at it. If you can’t take debate at this level, perhaps you’re out of your element. Maybe you should stick with a ditto-head sites where everyone says the same things and nods their heads at every post.

I’m not trying to insult you here, I’m just getting really frustrated that I go through quite a bit of work to gather credible links together to present evidence only to have them completely ignored. Seriously, how can you read a piece from NASA, or NOAA, or one of these very respected organizations and say that they are somehow they are liberal or whatever. That’s some seriously batty logic.

Sadly, this too will probably fall on deaf ears. C’est la vie.

But for kicks and giggles, I might go ahead and go through the junkscience.com thread and detail it out, just to be the better man. But it will have to wait until this evening; I have about six meetings to attend today.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"Yet all you do is play on without so much as a response to the refutation I presented."

That's because he's a coward who is afraid to get involved at a level he knows he can't win at. He also really does not understand what you are saying to him. This is why he keeps repeating the same things after you've directly responded to him on them, as if you never responded at all.

"I’m just getting really frustrated that I go through quite a bit of work to gather credible links together to present evidence only to have them completely ignored."

You know, you're playing into his game. This is what he wants from you, and you're giving it to him. He's not going to respond to this, either. Except to maybe mention how 17,000 scientists have signed some sort of petition.

 

Originally Posted By YourPalEd

<<<Ed might be a kook, but at least he has some smarts. That's the big difference here.>>>

Sniff, sniff, aw shucks, thanks jonvn.

 

Originally Posted By YourPalEd

<<<Ed might be a kook,>>>

Hey, wait a minute.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

You're welcome.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<You mean NASA, NOAA, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the US Geological Service, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (part of the DoE), the EPA, the US Global Change Research Program (official US government organization), etc… are now somehow liberal global warming hack organizations? *lol* Yeah…umm…you continue to prove my point perfectly!>>

<<You see Beau, I know your shtick inside and out. You play this little game all the time. In this case, you presented a few different links on global warming, all of which I answered in detail. >>

Yes Tigger, all of these organizations have inside groups that get BILLIONS of dollars for funding if they say man made global warming is real. Why is that so hard for you to admit? You don't see where they benefit from producing reports that hint they are right? Do you really think they are going to all of a sudden change their views so their funding gets cut off?

Nope... even if they have to produce bogus models and flawed readings to keep the scam going.

CO2 gas does not cause the earth to heat up. I have provided a very long and detailed link to how CO2 gas works and how humans don't produce enough to cause any climate change.

Now you are telling me the report is garbage?? Really?? Tell us why?

I know you have explained your understanding of CO2 gas in the past. Thank you. But you never proved the man made global warming theory. ( of course )

You can't get us a list of NAMES that support man made global warming for a reason. There is no list.

We all know who really would be on the list though. Far left kook people who push an agenda. Just admit it or give me some names. 5000 names will do.

So there is no " shtick " going on here. I have thousands of scienitsts who prove my point using rock solid science. I have produced their evidence on this thread. I have read their report many times. I have thousands of scientists who back this up. Scienitsts with no political or financial agenga like yours.

Meanwile, you have a bunch of left wingers who don't actually have any real proof that CO2 gas from humans is causing global warming. In fact, you have people who have been caught with flawed models who are pushing a THEORY that they can't actually prove.

Why are they pushing this theory???

Because it advances their political agenda of getting people out of their cars and it gets them BILLIONS of dollars in research funding. It's that simple. Why do you deny this?

Now we see their are no hurricanes this season for the global warming people to exploit. Awwwwwwww. What happened? They promised a killer hurricanse season since global warming is here to destroy the world.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<That's because he's a coward who is afraid to get involved at a level he knows he can't win at. He also really does not understand what you are saying to him. This is why he keeps repeating the same things after you've directly responded to him on them, as if you never responded at all.>>

Uh jon. Your the coward dude. You are the one who made a total fool of yourself as you insisted the debate was over and a consensus among scientists had been formed that man made global warming is real.

Yet... you have no proof to prove this bogus theory and there are thousands of scientists on my side compared to not so many on your side who say your a fool.

You got taken to the woodshed so many times on this issue I started to feel sorry for you. Once you start saying people are not to be taken serious or they " don't get it " we know you are done.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Yes Tigger, all of these organizations have inside groups that get BILLIONS of dollars for funding if they say man made global warming is real.>

But Beaumandy, all those groups don't say man made global warming is real. They say that it's "likely" that human activity is causing some warming, or that it's "possible" that humans are contributing to global warming.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

To summarize the link I provided on this thread that seems to get ignored by people like jon who insists Al Gore is the man.

What are the take-home messages:


The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.

The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).

The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.

The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)

Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.

Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.

Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.

There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.

Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<But Beaumandy, all those groups don't say man made global warming is real. They say that it's "likely" that human activity is causing some warming, or that it's "possible" that humans are contributing to global warming. >>

Well, if you listen to some on here, those groups are saying man made global warming is real and we had better change our behavior.

 

Originally Posted By YourPalEd

Sorry, no. All honest people, you don't have to be a scientist, all honest people know global warming, is very, very real.

You see it's not just people multiplying, it's cars, and cars use a disproportionate amount of oxygen for the amount of cabon givin back.

The idea of blaming industries is important too, but i'm afraid the burning of oil will stop quite suddenly. As cars will stop functioning when the oxygen runs out.

It won't happen all over the world at the same time. Pocket areas of oxygen depletion will occur in the los angeles areas first, most likely. Other huge industrial areas not near oceans, might also suffocate.

The oracle warning i will give to the ignorant followers of ed.

"Watch for the dying birds dropping from the sky."

I'm being honest with everyone who reads my words here, you are thought of as a fool if you deny global warming. It's as simple as that. If you say cars are not destroying the ability of our planet to sustain life, then you have nothing to say, and no one will ever listen to you again.

Of course it is a gamble on your part, like betting on a football game, and nothing more. You're bet is that you will be gone long before the drastic changes will occur. So, because you are incredibly selfish, you don't want to have to relearn how to deal with life without huge cars.

Trucks should be cut into a third. Give 3 truck drivers jobs, just smaller jobs but shared.

Instead of huge, two-section buses going down vermont with all empty seats. Use 5 smaller buses, that can be shuffled about to where the crowds need them.

5 poor people get jobs driving the busses instead of just one. The idea is to spread the money around the people who actually need it, so they can buy your worthless products that you hawk.

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

But Beaumandy, all those groups don't say man made global warming is real. They say that it's "likely" that human activity is causing some warming, or that it's "possible" that humans are contributing to global warming. >>>

Let's pretend that an asteroid was hurtling itself toward earth. Would you imagine that someone would look at it and sniff and say "Well it isn't a man made disaster, so we shouldn't spend any money to fix it."

If possible (probably not) get past the "who caused it" and get to the "what are we going to do about it now?" Hey...same theory as Iraq.

And it also begs another question -- if all of these particular agencies are making up data/scenarios so that they can get more funding, then what about other government agencies? Might that also be true of say, Homeland Security? How is it that one can trust one part of the government so much as to actually be willing to give up constitutional rights, but be so suspicious of another part? Don't they all have the same boss?

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB


What are the take-home messages:>>>

Oops, you forgot to cite where you lifted your information from...
<a href="http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/" target="_blank">http://www.junkscience.com/Gre
enhouse/</a>


P.S. A "summary" would be your own words.

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems. >>>>>>

Good grief, even these aren't his own words!

<a href="http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2006/03/index.html" target="_blank">http://ncwatch.typepad.com/med
ia/2006/03/index.html</a>

(Google the phrase -- it shows up in about a half dozen other sites as well)