Originally Posted By jonvn Apparently, without bothering to read much of the above, because I don't care that much, but apparently someone is not happy about global warming because a "columnist" doesn't think we have the smarts? The only one who doesn't seem to have the smarts is the columnist. These people are not experts, they don't have any basis for their statements, and yet their meaningless drivel is quoted here as if it has any use at all. It doesn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <These people are not experts, they don't have any basis for their statements, and yet their meaningless drivel is quoted here as if it has any use at all.> It's as much use as your comments. In fact, Mr Taranto of the WSJ makes a lot more sense a lot more often than you do. That said, I agree with you that Ms Goodman's column is useless.
Originally Posted By jonvn "In fact, Mr Taranto of the WSJ " Is not an expert in the field, and doesn't know what he's talking about. End of story.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is not an expert in the field, and doesn't know what he's talking about.> And yet he makes a lot more sense than you, another person who is not an expert in the field.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And yet he " IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD, and does not have anything worth listening to.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn I never claimed to be an expert in the field, quite the opposite. I have repeatedly said we listen to those who are, and this person is not. So, it's a pointless exercise. If you want to listen to people who don't know a thing about the subject, feel free. Consult a Ouija board, while you are at it. It's about as useful.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I never claimed to be an expert in the field> Neither has Mr Taranto. <I have repeatedly said we listen to those who are, and this person is not.> You've said a lot more than that, but since you're not an expert in the field, I suppose none of your comments are worth listening to. If you were an expert in the field, then I suppose your comments about listening to experts in the field would be worth listening to, but you're not, so they must not be, right? And actually, Mr Taranto is an expert in the field of those commenting on those commenting on experts in the field, so I guess his comments in that field are useful, unlike yours, since as far as I know, you're not an expert in any fields.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Neither has Mr Taranto. " Fascinatingly pointless. "Mr Taranto is an expert in the field of those commenting on those commenting" I'll mention it again, since you seemed to have missed it the first 40 or so times I said this: Unless he is someone studying the matter and is making statements in peer reviewed publications, his views on the matter mean nothing. Got it? His opinions are not useful, and are of no meaning, no matter how much you want to twist it. It comes down to this: If this guy is giving opinions on global warming, and he is not a scientist publishing peer reviewed material, his statements on the matter don't amount to anything.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I've stated this recently before but it seems to bear repeating. What with the advances in technology and industry in the last 200 years, and all that humans all over the world have pumped into the atmosphere and oceans as a result, it is sheer folly, bordering on idiocy, to deny that this behavior has not had a negative impact on the climate. That it takes study after atudy to confirm this is maddening.
Originally Posted By jonvn What is maddening to me is that we have these people running around who thinks that a "commentor on a commentor" somehow would know better than every major world organization with experts in the field doing actual research on the subject would. And then they are quoted and given as much weight as someone who actually does know this stuff. Of course you are right, SPP. That's what the sciencetists who are studying this have to say. Of course, the EPA, the IPCC, the American Geophysists Union and the rest have NOTHING on this clown in the WSJ. They all fall to his unerring logic.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/gobal_warmings_globalist_backe.html" target="_blank">http://www.americanthinker.com /2007/02/gobal_warmings_globalist_backe.html</a> >>But in fact, they're serious, though not in the sense offered. If UN efforts had anything to actually do with global warming, they would not consistently overlook China and India. Attempting to address a problem as vast as climatic change without accounting for the world's two most populous countries - both engaged in breakneck efforts at industrial modernization - is well beyond simply asinine. Particularly since China stands in a class by itself as far as pollution goes, messing up rivers, ecosystems, and entire orbital zones with equal abandon. There are, to choose only one example, evidently several hundred abandoned, blazing coal mines in the Chinese interior that have been left to burn themselves out. What effect this has to the carbon dioxide balance can only be imagined, since nobody has dared question the Chinese about it. As far as climate change goes, what this translates into is (as Dr. Robert Giegengack puts it) that the battle is over. Every last SUV on every American highway wouldn't account for a drop in the bucket representing Chinese and Indian plans. So in the unlikely event that global warming is the case, we will simply have to learn to live with it, as the Vikings and everybody else did at the end of the last millennium But of course, that's not the point. Apart from providing Chirac with something to step up to after leaving the helm of le Republique Grande, the aim of all these schemes, from Annan's tax plans to the Kyoto Treaty to the climate change authority, is simply to bridle the United States. If not to bring it under complete UN suzerainty, then to exercise some form of bureaucratic restraint over what the UN hierarchy has long viewed as an out-of-control colossus. The UN effectively controls many derelict third-world states (and even the occasional European example, such as Kosovo). Why not the U.S.? The simple answer - and one we don't need to look past - is that the day the UN seriously attempts any such thing is the day it gets evicted. Nothing pulls together the irreconcilable elements of the American polity more completely than a threat to U.S. sovereignty. The 1997 vote on the Kyoto Treaty, 95-0, makes that clear. Many of those who voted against the protocol (including Kerry, Boxer, and Schumer) share global warming fears and even the internationalist impulse. But not to the extent of placing themselves under UN oversight. The transnational dream comes in many varied and dissimilar forms, depending on who's doing the dreaming. So we can probably leave any sort of global warming authority out of our future calculations. Excepting one possible case: we've previously pointed out here that environmentalism displays all the aspects of a pseudo-religion. And religions - as we've seen in recent years with the Jihadis - represent the sole existing example of a working transnational structure. A militant global environmentalist creed might very well be capable of pushing such a program through. It wouldn't necessarily establish a warming authority as much as it would become one, in and of itself. A very spooky possibility, if only because there are plenty of people in the U.S. who would welcome such a thing. So it might be worth keeping one eye on the situation. But no morethan that. For a religion to spread in such a manner it would require a messiah. And the Greens, despite Al Gore's best efforts, don't have one of those yet.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/global_warming_surprises.html" target="_blank">http://www.americanthinker.com /blog/2007/02/global_warming_surprises.html</a> >>Climate change advocates will counter by pointing out that weather is not climate, and they'd be quite right. But here's the thing: virtually all global warming models predict that the bulk of warming will occur during the winter. The Greens enjoy going into hysterics every time there's a hot weekend in August, but that's all theater. The biggest change would come with milder and less snowy winters, as was seen during the Medieval warming period of the 10th to 13th centuries, when an expanded growing season led to a revolution in agriculture and a vast increase in population. That's not what's happening today. Despite episodes like that of last December, which was far milder than usual, recent winters have seen a slow but steady march toward more inclement weather. The winters of 1999 and 2000 were a near-match for our present one, with national U.S. temperatures in the teens for lengthy periods, blizzards across the south, and some of the worst storms in a century in Europe and the Mideast. Several of the winters since have also had unusually cold periods. All this serves to underline the contention that if anything is happening to the climate, a linear progression to a warmer status is not the explanation. The warming advocates have been predicting exactly that for a quarter of a century (I first heard of the warming thesis in 1983. The temperature was in the low 40s, in New Jersey, in late May.) and it hasn't happened. Despite all the PR, and the reports, and the Gore film, the theory is beginning to show its age. One of the major qualities of nature is that of surprise. The evolution and expression of world climate is very likely far more complex and difficult to follow than we currently grasp. The problem is that the current warming "consensus" may be stifling the research that might in fact tell us what is occurring and how to prepare for it. The earth's climate may have a far bigger surprise in store for us than we can now guess. <<
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What is maddening to me is that we have these people running around who thinks that a "commentor on a commentor" somehow would know better than every major world organization with experts in the field doing actual research on the subject would.> What's maddening to me is that we have someone running around who thinks he understands what is being said when he has no clue. <That's what the sciencetists who are studying this have to say.> How do you know? Are you an expert in the field? Have your comments been peer reviewed? If not, what you think scientists are saying isn't worth listening to, is it?
Originally Posted By jonvn "And again, since no one here is studying the matter" And has already been said to you several times now, no one claims they have. However, there are other people in the world who, in fact, have, and continue to do so. Those are the ones you listen to. I've said nothing else. And they all say pretty much the same things. "What's maddening to me is that we have someone running around who thinks he understands what is being said when he has no clue." Then you should stop reading your own posts. "How do you know? Are you an expert in the field?" Oh, I don't know. I suppose maybe because they keep issuing reports making very plain statements on the subject. So, again, you are entering a long line of nonsense semantics. You are putting up strawmen whereby I supposedly have made some sort of claim to be an expert in the field, or that you have to be an expert in the field in order to understand what someone has said to you who is one. I will say it again: The people who are studying this and write for peer-reviewed journals all say basically the same thing. This is now even being accepted by the people who run Exxon, the White House, and pretty much anyone with any real interest in the welfare of our future. So, please, take your semantic nonsense and go play elsewhere. It's quite bare here to be seen, as this is utterly cut and dried. I suppose you will keep trying though. You've already revved up two or three levels of meta talk at this point.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And has already been said to you several times now, no one claims they have.> But they do keep making statements like their statements mean something, when apparently they don't. <And they all say pretty much the same things.> So you say. But since you're not a expert speaking in a peer-reviewed publication, your statement is worthless, no? <Then you should stop reading your own posts.> I write my posts. I read yours. <So, again, you are entering a long line of nonsense semantics. You are putting up strawmen whereby I supposedly have made some sort of claim to be an expert in the field, or that you have to be an expert in the field in order to understand what someone has said to you who is one.> No, I'm not. <I will say it again: The people who are studying this and write for peer-reviewed journals all say basically the same thing.> Maybe, but you're not qualified to discuss it, according to yourself. <So, please, take your semantic nonsense and go play elsewhere.> I'll stop when you do. <I suppose you will keep trying though.> I don't need to try. I'm succeeding.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I actually started to read the reports Darkbeer posted, but I had to stop with the first paragraph when I saw this: “Concurrent with the release of the International Panel on Climate Control's "report" (actually a twenty-page "summary for policy makers" with the report itself…†Now, for someone who portrays himself as knowledgeable on the subject, the guy is apparently isn't. It isn’t the International Panel on Climate Control; it’s called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Seriously, if someone can’t even get the name of the organization he is talking about correct, they aren’t worth a cursory glance. Who know what else is bogus? Furthermore, if the americanthinker.com website has such low of expectations from the contributing authors, why should anyone give them any consideration (unless they are approaching the issue with a bias in the first place)? Then it doesn’t matter what they say.
