Quote from: John Morrow;224838And we should believe anything we hear on NPR about the economy, especially during a presidential election year. :rolleyes:

Not seeing starving vagrants or tent cities of unemployed homeless people might not be reason enough to dismiss concerns about he economy but they are good reasons to laugh at NPR's comparison of the current economy with the Great Depression.  Here is another reason to laugh at NPR's characterization of he employment numbers.

Of course, that explains all of it!

No, wait, it doesn't.
"An increase in the youth labor force played a role in May's unemployment spike. However, even if we take teenagers out of the data, unemployment still rises from 4.5% to 4.8%, a considerable 0.3% increase, and well above the 4.0% adult rate of one-year ago."

Here is an article that supports your point of view.  Crap, no that doesn't either.

I'm just not good at coming up with extreme right wing anti-content screeds.

Quote from: jeff37923;224791I've got to ask. With everything you've listed as reasons why things are bad, then why don't you just commit suicide and get The End over with?

Obviously it's because I'm not a Walkerist.  


Seriously, though, you seem to be missing my core argument that it is possible to change things and save ourselves - it's an "evolve or die" argument, not a "the end is neigh" argument.  I'm saying that continuing down the same path is going to lead to ruin, not that all paths will.  

The only thing I'm saying will happen no matter what with regard to the economic side is that the USA will soon cease to be the most powerful nation in the world, so we better start learning how to adapt to the new world order of things.  And on the environmental side, we don't have much time left before life as we know it is really screwed, so we damn well better focus as many resources on fixing the problems instead of pretending they don't exist or that we should attempt any solutions because we don't have a perfect one.  Maybe I'm wrong and it will take more than 10 years, but it's a certainty that the sun will set on the US at some point and that we can't have major climate-changing events occurring without serious effects on our quality of life.

I realize that the conservative counter-argument is "we're just going through a cycle, it will get better later".  And yes, most times it does work that way.  But history has also seen the fall of many great and powerful countries over the last 5000 years, and I think it is equally pointless to completely dismiss that.  I'm sure all those countries thought they would be the most powerful nation in the world forever, too.  As for the environment, there's no historical argument there, hence the "pretend it's not that bad" tactic.

Quote from: StormBringer;224859Here is an article that supports your point of view.  Crap, no that doesn't either.

It doesn't support NPR's (our your) sensationalist claim that it was the biggest loss since the Great Depression, either, unless you think the Great Depression was 22 years ago.

Quote from: StormBringer;224859I'm just not good at coming up with extreme right wing anti-content screeds.

No, but you do a great job of regurgitating left-wing talking points and unsupported sensationalist claims.  

I'm also still waiting for a figure on how many children a year die from coal soot from power plants, by the way.

Quote from: John Morrow;224873It doesn't support NPR's (our your) sensationalist claim that it was the biggest loss since the Great Depression, either, unless you think the Great Depression was 22 years ago.

Bush's Job-Loss Recovery the Worst on Record Since the Great Depression (October 7, 2003)
Labor market left behind
Ohio Job Losses Worst Since Great Depression
Come on, swim around a little bit, it's no fun just shooting.

Seriously, five minutes on Google.  I am not going to do the research before you spout nonsense for free anymore.  You can send me a check for $50 each time.

In related Great Depression news:
Dow and S&P 500 see the biggest losses for the month since the Great Depression despite edging higher Monday.

QuoteNo, but you do a great job of regurgitating left-wing talking points and unsupported sensationalist claims.

no u

QuoteI'm also still waiting for a figure on how many children a year die from coal soot from power plants, by the way.

That's your only rebuttal?  One point that I already admitted was a stand in for various diseases, childhood or otherwise?

I've already pointed out the higher rates of cancer in your home state among children.  I'm going to call that sufficient to demonstrate my point.  You can continue to harp on it if you wish.

Quote from: jgants;224872The only thing I'm saying will happen no matter what with regard to the economic side is that the USA will soon cease to be the most powerful nation in the world, so we better start learning how to adapt to the new world order of things.  

So why can't the USA choose as a nation to climb back up to being the most powerful nation in the world? Isn't that a preferred or viable option for Americans?

QuoteAnd on the environmental side, we don't have much time left before life as we know it is really screwed, so we damn well better focus as many resources on fixing the problems instead of pretending they don't exist or that we should attempt any solutions because we don't have a perfect one.  Maybe I'm wrong and it will take more than 10 years, but it's a certainty that the sun will set on the US at some point and that we can't have major climate-changing events occurring without serious effects on our quality of life.

So why can't solving our climate problems go hand-in-hand with being a prosperous, powerful, and wealthy nation?

QuoteI realize that the conservative counter-argument is "we're just going through a cycle, it will get better later".  And yes, most times it does work that way.  But history has also seen the fall of many great and powerful countries over the last 5000 years, and I think it is equally pointless to completely dismiss that.  I'm sure all those countries thought they would be the most powerful nation in the world forever, too.  As for the environment, there's no historical argument there, hence the "pretend it's not that bad" tactic.

So, the fall of the USA as a nation is inevitable, regardless of what is done?

The environment is screwed and that's just the way it is? No discussion or questioning of position and the data that supports it? That sounds more like dogma than science, IMHO.

Quote from: jeff37923;224980So why can't solving our climate problems go hand-in-hand with being a prosperous, powerful, and wealthy nation?

Bingo.

Honestly, I think you don't hear this from environmental scientists much because they either don't think of it, or they simply don't comment on something so far outside their expertise.

How can investing in green technologies do anything but provide jobs and strengthen the economy?  And if it turns out that the environmentalists were waaaaaaaay off and the pollutants are more like a century from causing problems, so what?  We are ahead of the curve.  It's not like we can make more oil anyway, and it would be better to get those technologies on the market now rather than when we really are less than a decade from running out.

Quote from: StormBringer;224915Bush's Job-Loss Recovery the Worst on Record Since the Great Depression (October 7, 2003)
Labor market left behind
Ohio Job Losses Worst Since Great Depression
Come on, swim around a little bit, it's no fun just shooting.

Do you have a single source for those claims that's not a partisan site or blog?  I don't have time to fact check their claims because here's a sampling of what I find when I do:  From FactCheck.org on the Great Depression claims from the 2004 election (after that 2003 claim), "Comparing the current [2004] job slump to the Great Depression is ludicrous.".  It's also hilarious how the claims get more and more specific (Ohio?) in order to make a comparison to The Great Depression.  The comparison is insane anywhere other than nutty partisan land.

Quote from: StormBringer;224915Seriously, five minutes on Google.  I am not going to do the research before you spout nonsense for free anymore.  You can send me a check for $50 each time.

Quoting biased blogs and groups is not "research" any more than my article from National Review was (predictably the only part of my post that you replied to).  It's called "spouting partisan talking points".

Quote from: StormBringer;224915In related Great Depression news:
Dow and S&P 500 see the biggest losses for the month since the Great Depression despite edging higher Monday.

CNN, huh?  Here's the full quote from inside of the article that seems to be leading to that headline: "It's been a terrible June, something like the worst since the Great Depression," said Church.

It's "something like" the worst?  On what basis?  In an article that talks about it meeting "the technical definition of a bear market"?  So we've never had a bear market since The Great Depression?  And even if it was the worst, being the worst since The Great Depression does not make it as bad as The Great Depression.  

Quote from: StormBringer;224915That's your only rebuttal?  One point that I already admitted was a stand in for various diseases, childhood or otherwise?

You made a claim and you can't support it.  The stand-in argument is nonsense because we were talking specifically about coal fired power-plants.  

You claimed, "But it pisses me off that people like you are so fucking oblivious that you would rather have a dozen kids get lung cancer from coal soot than pursue any green initiatives that would require some sacrifice, no matter how small."  If you want me to be concerned over kids getting lung cancer from coal soot, I want you to show me the connection and show me how prevalent it is.  Show me that even the dozen children a year that you claim die from coal soot and that coal soot is the actual cause of their cancer.

Quote from: StormBringer;224915I've already pointed out the higher rates of cancer in your home state among children.  I'm going to call that sufficient to demonstrate my point.  You can continue to harp on it if you wish.

Here is an interesting article from 1999 that makes a few points you should consider about the childhood cancer rate in New Jersey (A) there is a cluster in Toms River (that's most likely related to past chemical manufacturing in the area, not a landfall or power plant, which is what you were complaining about) (B) in 1999 the state rate of childhood cancer was 14.3 per 100,000 while the national average was 13.6 (the difference from the national average being less than 1 in 100,000), and (C) the cancer rate among black children (who are more likely to live in the more industrial and urbanized parts of the state near things like power plants) have a childhood cancer rate below the national average.  So, no, it doesn't demonstrate your point about a link between children dying from coal power plants.  In fact, I think it does a pretty good job of illustrating how overly simplistic your understanding of the relationship between death rates and things like power plants and industrialization are.

Quote from: John Morrow;224837Ah, the "hockey stick" that claims that the Medieval Warm Period didn't exist or was a local phenomena despite the fact that there's plenty of evidence that it did exist and wasn't local.  

I'm sure you don't find it the least big suspicious that not long after Dr. David Deming was told by a major researcher in the area of climate change that "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." that researchers, using cherry picked data ("You have cherry pick if you want to make cherry pie."), that relies heavily on unreliable tree ring proxies ("The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology."), and refuse to provide details about their data or how they process it to get those wonderful "hockey stick" graphs just happen to produce charts showing no Medieval Warm Period?

I concur that there is a lot of nonsense thrown about regarding global warming.  However, this claim also seems pretty bogus.  Deming -- himself a conservative activist -- claims that an unnamed "major researcher" sent him an email saying some things. Seriously, am I really supposed to take "some guy claims he got an email" and on the basis of this dismiss the leading scientific results within a field?  

Scientists can have biases and be wrong, but that doesn't mean that just because someone claims he got an email that we should dismiss the field.  If you're going to claim that the leading researchers are actually denying the Medieval Warm Period, a better bit of evidence might be a named researcher publicly saying such.  As far as I've seen, they haven't.  Now, there are some genuine criticisms, like McIntyre and McKitrick, or the "Ad Hoc Committee" report by Edward J. Wegman, David W. Scott, and Yasmin H. Said.  I don't find them particularly convincing, nor do the paleoclimatology community.  The Ad Hoc Committee report itself says "paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs" and proceeds to criticize the practices of the community, which as far as I can see are standard for scientific circles.

Edit: I mostly agree about the depression stuff, though.

Quote from: jeff37923;224980So why can't the USA choose as a nation to climb back up to being the most powerful nation in the world? Isn't that a preferred or viable option for Americans?

I think we can definately become one of the great nations again (I think learning a little humility first will be necessary - right now we are incredibly arrogant as a nation).  I'm not sure about being the most powerful, though.  As time goes on, I see the process leading more and more to power through collectives of nations and less to individual nations.

Quote from: jeff37923;224980So why can't solving our climate problems go hand-in-hand with being a prosperous, powerful, and wealthy nation?

I think that they certainly can go hand in hand.  If we put the kind of effort into developing new technologies that we currently put into pretending problems don't exist, pointless wars, buying war machines we don't need, preventing gay marriage, preventing stem cell research, and all the other nonsense that goes on, I have no doubt we'd be very prosperous.

The problem is that we are spending our resources on the wrong things.

Quote from: jeff37923;224980So, the fall of the USA as a nation is inevitable, regardless of what is done?

The environment is screwed and that's just the way it is? No discussion or questioning of position and the data that supports it? That sounds more like dogma than science, IMHO.

I admit, I'm conflating a couple things there that I shouldn't have.  In one sense, the USA will eventually fall as a nation, just like the sun will eventually burn out and all life on earth will eventually end - but yeah, that's not really helpful as a point.  In the other sense, I'm talking about the fall of power of big nations like, say, Spain back in the 15th century or France in the Middle Ages.  Basically I just want to argue against the rather naive assumption people make that "it could never happen to us", because it could.

As for the environment, we've been questioning it for 30 years rather than really trying to fix it.  And so far, things have pretty much followed the predictions that were made.  I think it's time we start considering they may have been right.

Quote from: John Morrow;225091Quoting biased blogs and groups is not "research" any more than my article from National Review was (predictably the only part of my post that you replied to).  It's called "spouting partisan talking points".

And yet, all you have provided so far is...  biased blogs and groups.

QuoteYou made a claim and you can't support it.  The stand-in argument is nonsense because we were talking specifically about coal fired power-plants.

No, you are talking specifically about coal fired power plants.  As I mentioned, it was a stand in argument for a variety of problems caused by careless pollution emissions.  If you want to keep harping on that, people are going to notice that you are avoiding the bigger picture, and hence, don't have an argument for it.

QuoteYou claimed, "But it pisses me off that people like you are so fucking oblivious that you would rather have a dozen kids get lung cancer from coal soot than pursue any green initiatives that would require some sacrifice, no matter how small."  If you want me to be concerned over kids getting lung cancer from coal soot, I want you to show me the connection and show me how prevalent it is.  Show me that even the dozen children a year that you claim die from coal soot and that coal soot is the actual cause of their cancer.

I don't personally care what you are concerned with.  The environment will be cleaned up with or without your help.

You're Welcome.

QuoteHere is an interesting article from 1999 that makes a few points you should consider about the childhood cancer rate in New Jersey (A) there is a cluster in Toms River (that's most likely related to past chemical manufacturing in the area, not a landfall or power plant, which is what you were complaining about)

Is there a difference, to the kids with cancer?

And seriously, you were just bitching about my use of blogs, and you try to counter official New Jersey findings with an article?

Quote(B) in 1999 the state rate of childhood cancer was 14.3 per 100,000 while the national average was 13.6 (the difference from the national average being less than 1 in 100,000),

And yet, it is still higher.

Quote...and (C) the cancer rate among black children (who are more likely to live in the more industrial and urbanized parts of the state near things like power plants) have a childhood cancer rate below the national average.

Which is nice and all, but the report I provided covers the years from 1979 to 2005.  Which, if you will notice, is the range that your data falls in.  So, in fact, the New Jersey report already covers what you mention.

QuoteSo, no, it doesn't demonstrate your point about a link between children dying from coal power plants.  In fact, I think it does a pretty good job of illustrating how overly simplistic your understanding of the relationship between death rates and things like power plants and industrialization are.

So, as long as the kids aren't developing cancer from coal plants, you are good?

Did you miss the part where I listed several sources for pollution emission?  Because I would rather not have to type all of those into every sentence.  It would take too long, it was quite clear what I was getting at, and I am not going to address your pedantic demands that this one point be fully addressed.

I mean, you still haven't figured out why carbon dioxide can be a problem, you haven't clearly demonstrated that the environmentalists directly invented and implemented MTBE, and you have yet to explain why your one course in Medieval History coupled with a semester of climatology makes you more qualified to determine the validity of the methods employed by the IPCC or any other scientific body.

Your plate is pretty full now, without trying to get into some specifics.  Even if I did admit that there simply aren't any statistics regarding childhood cancer rates and the proximity to coal plants, you are still deep in the hole on a staggering number of other points.  And the claim that your biased sources are better than my biased sources isn't convincing anyone.

But, hey, let's do a thought experiment real quick.  Let's assume two things:

1) The environment is a good deal hardier than anyone thinks, and there isn't enough material on Earth to really ruin it.
2) Scientists like to get their salaries.

So, what you said several posts ago is that a large scale change in the energy sector will cause the collapse of the economy.  So, since the scientists in question like to get paid for their work like everyone else (#2), it stands to reason that they wouldn't want to jeopardize that on a whim or flimsy evidence, especially if there was clear evidence they were completely wrong (#1).  Hence, if the economy would be devastated by changes to energy policy and production, they would be working against their own interests!  And for no good reason!  Alternately, the IPCC is where all the mad scientists go, but we can't infer that from our premises.  We can add a caveat that perhaps the scientists simply aren't aware of the economic devastation they would unleash.  But, that would imply that the actual economists aren't paying attention, or have no way to communicate with the scientists.  Neither of those seem likely, so we can assume they are paying attention, and have every means to communicate with the scientists.

Therefore, the question is:  What is the scientist's motivation in destroying the economy?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857It would, or it might?  "Damage" which may be fully offset by the introduction of new industries, or certain collapse of the economy?

More complicated and expensive things don't necessarily pay for themselves and when they do, they tend to get adopted without government regulation to enforce the adoption.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857What else does your crystal ball reveal?  You ask for people to ignore the real and accepted science on the climate, but insist that worst-case hypotheses from oil companies be taken at face value?

It's not a worse-case hypothesis from oil companies.  If carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced at little or no cost to a country's economy, why are various Kyoto signatories failing to meet the reductions required by the treaty including Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Ireland, Japan, and Portugal?  Are they all in the pocket of Big Oil?  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Yes, but the science isn't carried out by journalists.  If your facts are so self-evident, then some information source should have pointed them out, if only to debunk them.  That source should have pointed back to a peer-reviewed paper.  Easy as that.  Provide that, and we are good.

Real science can be carried out by anyone with an understanding of the issues.  That's why Carl Sagan pointed out that "in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."  Steve McIntyre does point out the problems he finds on ClimateAudit.org in great detail, including data sources, source code, and graphs.  A big part of the problem is that he's trying to reconstruct the data and algorithms that produce the "hockey stick" graph because the researchers that created that graph won't open their data or source code.  Here is Steve McIntyre's article on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science that summarizes his complaint pretty well:

   It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said that no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. He refused to ask for source code; the author refused to provide supporting calculations. Out of my involvement, the journal ended up with a new data policy, which was all to the good. But there is nothing at the journal peer review stage in climate publications which is remotely like an audit.

So what does it mean for an article to be "peer reviewed" when the reviewers never check the data and calculations?  Why would an author refuse to provide supporting calculations (McIntyre makes all of his open on his site)?  When McIntyre asked Crowley for his unmodified data, he claimed he "misplaced" it?  The dog ate his homework?  Phil Jones responded to a request for his data by saying, "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."  If he's confident that there isn't anything wrong with his data, then what's the problem?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857First things first:  Why is carbon dioxide considered a problem?

It's considered a problem by those who think it's a problem because man-made global warming advocates believe that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will contribute to detrimental global warming.  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Whoa, there Chester!  Who was responsible for MTBE?  Did the environmentalists whip this stuff up and start sneaking it into gas tanks?  Or did they ask for cleaner processes, and the oil and car companies came up with a solution that turned sour?

Environmentalists demanded oxygenated fuel.  The oil companies chose MBTE because it was convenient.  They wouldn't have been adding it if it weren't for the environmental regulation requiring oxygenation and the pressure to continue it's use even after complaints was to comply with the environmental regulations.  It's a convenient out to say, "They asked for oxygenated fuel but not MBTE."  Then maybe they should be a little more specific than simply saying, "Solve this problem somehow but we don't know how."

Quote from: StormBringer;224857So, finely ground silica is identical to grains of sand?  This is the fuzzy headed logic that keeps tripping you up.  I mean, you do know that fine particulates are more dangerous to the health than their normal form, right?

If I check the OSHA page on silica, it tells me about sand blasting, not broken light bulbs.  Can you point me to a single rational page describing the hazards of broken incandescent light bulbs that you are claiming?  Why is it that I've never heard of any concern about broken incandescent light bulbs or any effort to recycle them yet I'm hearing about both with respect to compact fluorescent bulbs?  Why don't the proponents of compact fluorescent bulbs, when answering concerns about them, talk about the dangers of the silica in incandescent bulbs?  Maybe because it's not a real issue?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Cadmium? Manganese? Mercury?  Lead?  I thought you were talking about some weird new type of battery with unusual metals.

So are you claiming that nobody uses those older types of rechargeable batteries anymore?  What's the relevance of what year they were invented?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857I had no idea what you were talking about, because you seem to think that "lead" is some exotic material.

Yeah, that's it, not because you were purposely being obtuse... :rolleyes:

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Five million atmospheres.  In the hopes of creating.  Keep reaching for those straws.

Of course I wasn't talking about hydrogen.  You were.  I was simply pointing out your straw man was not entirely correct.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Yes.  My folks used to have the same rechargables for years.

Decades.  You said decades.  Stop moving the goal posts when backing your claims up prove to be inconvenient.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857I would call "Perhaps, we can actually keep a modern life-style, but in a more sensible and less harmful manner." pretty much dead on center.  How is that an extreme statement?

OK.  Fair enough.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857I've read enough of your ill-informed tripe to become quite familiar with it.

You certainly dish enough of it out yourself.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857But, hey, look at the enormous air pollution levels over the less populated areas!  Well, unless you can properly interpret data.  In which case, your statement is not only false, it is the exact opposite of the actual conditions.

I said "polution", which does not simply mean "nitrous dioxide", but you do love to cherry pick your data, don't you?  No wonder you love the hockey stick so much.

How about this map of particulate air pollution[/url] (the type of pollution you seem so bothered about when it comes to coal dust and silica)?    Or how about these images looking at CO and fine aerosols?  Or maybe look at other types of pollution such as water pollution and soil contamination.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Appearantly, what New Jersey is doing right is having children develop cancer at a higher rate than the national average (Tables 2 and 3).  Go Jersey!

Yes I know that.  It's above the average by about 1 in 100,000.  With odds like that, I better move right away if I love my children, right?

Remember, my original point (since you are doing your best to try to drift from it, doing exactly what I was complaining about) was:

   "One of the biggest detriments to the modern environmentalist movement is it's inability to distinguish degrees and types of harm. I'm sorry but breathing carbon dioxide is not the equivalent of dumping mercury into a landfill.

I'm all for stopping factories from dumping clearly detrimental toxins into the environment, including those that probably turned Toms River into a childhood cancer hotspot in New Jersey.  That's not the same as worrying about hypothetical and statistically insignificant risk increases from other substances.  Yet in typical alarmist fashion, you do your best to mash it all into one "for us or against us" issue.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857It would, or it might?  "Damage" which may be fully offset by the introduction of new industries, or certain collapse of the economy?

More complicated and expensive things don't necessarily pay for themselves and when they do, they tend to get adopted without government regulation to enforce the adoption.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857What else does your crystal ball reveal?  You ask for people to ignore the real and accepted science on the climate, but insist that worst-case hypotheses from oil companies be taken at face value?

It's not a worse-case hypothesis from oil companies.  If carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced at little or no cost to a country's economy, why are various Kyoto signatories failing to meet the reductions required by the treaty including Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Ireland, Japan, and Portugal?  Are they all in the pocket of Big Oil?  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Yes, but the science isn't carried out by journalists.  If your facts are so self-evident, then some information source should have pointed them out, if only to debunk them.  That source should have pointed back to a peer-reviewed paper.  Easy as that.  Provide that, and we are good.

Real science can be carried out by anyone with an understanding of the issues.  That's why Carl Sagan pointed out that "in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."  Steve McIntyre does point out the problems he finds on ClimateAudit.org in great detail, including data sources, source code, and graphs.  A big part of the problem is that he's trying to reconstruct the data and algorithms that produce the "hockey stick" graph because the researchers that created that graph won't open their data or source code.  Here is Steve McIntyre's article on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science that summarizes his complaint pretty well:

   It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said that no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. He refused to ask for source code; the author refused to provide supporting calculations. Out of my involvement, the journal ended up with a new data policy, which was all to the good. But there is nothing at the journal peer review stage in climate publications which is remotely like an audit.

So what does it mean for an article to be "peer reviewed" when the reviewers never check the data and calculations?  Why would an author refuse to provide supporting calculations (McIntyre makes all of his open on his site)?  When McIntyre asked Crowley for his unmodified data, he claimed he "misplaced" it?  The dog ate his homework?  Phil Jones responded to a request for his data by saying, "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."  If he's confident that there isn't anything wrong with his data, then what's the problem?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857First things first:  Why is carbon dioxide considered a problem?

It's considered a problem by those who think it's a problem because man-made global warming advocates believe that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will contribute to detrimental global warming.  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Whoa, there Chester!  Who was responsible for MTBE?  Did the environmentalists whip this stuff up and start sneaking it into gas tanks?  Or did they ask for cleaner processes, and the oil and car companies came up with a solution that turned sour?

Environmentalists demanded oxygenated fuel.  The oil companies chose MBTE because it was convenient.  They wouldn't have been adding it if it weren't for the environmental regulation requiring oxygenation and the pressure to continue it's use even after complaints was to comply with the environmental regulations.  It's a convenient out to say, "They asked for oxygenated fuel but not MBTE."  Then maybe they should be a little more specific than simply saying, "Solve this problem somehow but we don't know how."

Quote from: StormBringer;224857So, finely ground silica is identical to grains of sand?  This is the fuzzy headed logic that keeps tripping you up.  I mean, you do know that fine particulates are more dangerous to the health than their normal form, right?

If I check the OSHA page on silica, it tells me about sand blasting, not broken light bulbs.  Can you point me to a single rational page describing the hazards of broken incandescent light bulbs that you are claiming?  Why is it that I've never heard of any concern about broken incandescent light bulbs or any effort to recycle them yet I'm hearing about both with respect to compact fluorescent bulbs?  Why don't the proponents of compact fluorescent bulbs, when answering concerns about them, talk about the dangers of the silica in incandescent bulbs?  Maybe because it's not a real issue?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Cadmium? Manganese? Mercury?  Lead?  I thought you were talking about some weird new type of battery with unusual metals.

So are you claiming that nobody uses those older types of rechargeable batteries anymore?  What's the relevance of what year they were invented?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857I had no idea what you were talking about, because you seem to think that "lead" is some exotic material.

Yeah, that's it, not because you were purposely being obtuse... :rolleyes:

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Five million atmospheres.  In the hopes of creating.  Keep reaching for those straws.

Of course I wasn't talking about hydrogen.  You were.  I was simply pointing out your straw man was not entirely correct.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Yes.  My folks used to have the same rechargables for years.

Decades.  You said decades.  Stop moving the goal posts when backing your claims up prove to be inconvenient.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857I would call "Perhaps, we can actually keep a modern life-style, but in a more sensible and less harmful manner." pretty much dead on center.  How is that an extreme statement?

OK.  Fair enough.  I have absolutely no problem with that as a goal.  I simply don't assume that carbon dioxide emission, in particular, are terribly harmful.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857I am sure with the wealth of information on this page, you should have no problem showing how I mis-interpreted the data or something.

If you look at that map and know anything about the population and land use of New Jersey, you'll notice a few things that suggest that the cancer rate doesn't have to do with any one thing.  Most of the red spots are rural and shore counties that aren't hotspots of either industry or power generation.  In fact, that whole band along the coast are in counties that people visit from all over the region for a vacation and fresh air.  Hudson County, on the other hand, which is a heavily polluted area along the Hudson River, is one of the low rate areas.  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857You should probably sign up for a class to recognize the excluded middle.  As a personal favour, I bolded it above, so you will have a head start in the class.

If you find it so easy to recognize excluded middle arguments, then why do you keep making them?  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Are you sure that is me doing that?

Several time, setting the tone for the discussion.  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Predictable.  The 'conspiracy theory' claim.

The guy who is ranting about capitalism and the oil industry doesn't believe in "conspiracy theories"?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857You are in luck, however.  I managed to get past their firewall, and crack their cryptography.  I don't know how long it will be until they find my infiltration and shut down the port, so get the information quickly!

Not the data I'm talking about.  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Oh, dear.  I was ignoring the "course" as a favour to you.  But since you bring it up, are you going to compare your course work against IPCC members[/i]?  I mean, seriously, would you suspect they might have more than a semester of introductory college level climate science under their belts?  Perhaps all the professorships and doctorates might give you a clue to the answer.

When I was younger and more naive, I expected all sorts of integrity from academics in general and scientists in particular that I no longer expect.  Of course people with impressive post-graduate degrees never, never, never commit fraud or get falsified data published in peer reviewed journals or win awards.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857(As an added bonus, my operatives were able to make off with a secret document  Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)

You do grasp the difference between a synthesis and raw data, right?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Hey, that crystal ball show anything about new industry job creation to go along with a transition to different energy sources?  Anything?  Ok, I will wait.

I thought the United States was having the worst economy since The Great Depression.  Now you tell me about all the new industry and job creation that's happening because of a transition to different energy sources.  So which is it?  And if you are talking about a transition that hasn't even started yet, how are you sure it's going to create new industries and jobs that offset the ones that are lost?  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857I suppose that evidence too voluminous to cite.  Which is why you didn't.

You keep reminding me that you know how to use Google.  It's not all that difficult to find. But since you apparently need some help, how about this?  Is New Zealand far enough from the North Atlantic for you?  Or how about Tibet?  I assume you'll have no more respect for Brian Fagan's advanced degrees or history of publication about human history than my single classes but you might want to consider this.

It will save us all a lot of time, though, if people just read RealClimate.org and ClimateAudit.org because both of those sites generally mention and opine about the various studies either way.  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Yes, the opening statements:
"Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow."
Well, you got the doctor part right this time, but neither of those even rhyme with 'paleoclimitologist'.  Or even 'climitologist'.  If this guy wants to talk my ears off about earthquakes and tectonic flow, I will buy lunch.

So if he knows noting about climate, why did the peer-reviewed Science, described by Wikipedia as "the academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and is considered one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals", titled Climatic Warming in North America: Analysis of Borehole Temperatures in 1995 if David Deming is unqualified to comment scientifically on climate?  Are you saying that your assessment of his academic credentials is better than the editorial board of "one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals"?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Perhaps you should alert the NOAA that they are jeopardizing that whole MWP cover-up thing.  

Oh, and the IPCC has a bit to say regarding the MWP also, assuming you can decrypt it from this highly secure site.

No, actually they are both part of the problem.  The NOAA site talks about current temperatures being warmer than the MWP and the IPCC talks about it being regional.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Didn't you refer me over to Steve McIntyre's web site?

I'm not recommending that you check out his web site because of his list of degrees or peer-reviewed papers.  I'm also not telling you to take his word for it because he's Steve McIntyre.  I'm recommending that you check out his web site because of the comprehensive data and information that he provides.  Read his arguments and see if you find them persuasive or not.  

Quote from: StormBringer;224857I didn't misrepresent anything you wrote, I just pointed out the factual condition you were utterly wrong about.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: StormBringer;224857And bullying?  Grow a spine.

Don't worry, I'm not scared little yappy dog.  I'm simply not impressed by all of the bluster.  Why is it there?  Because you really don't have much to say without it, do you?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Oh, goodness.  You realize he was referring to 'spiritualism', right?  If he knew you were trying to attack the scientific establishment with his own words, he would shoot himself.

So you are saying that spiritualism has to meet a higher standard of integrity and proof than science does? :rolleyes:

Of course the very point that I've been referring to refutes this claim.  Sagan wrote, "Arguments from authority carry little weight -- "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."  Sagan is specifically speaking about science here.  The problem is that you are treating science like a religion which is exactly what Sagan didn't want people to do.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857No, I made a specific statement, with 'lung cancer' as the stand in for any number of health related problems.

Uh, huh.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Doesn't really matter what my opinion is.  The Washington Post cites the EPA levels as:

Yes, the article credits the Bush Administration for the reduction.  Heaven forbid we continue down that same path.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Well, those, and facts from a legitimate body of researchers and scientists.  I can see how that second part trips you up.

You claim to stand behind "a legitimate body of researchers and scientists" yet you claim that your "legitimate body of researchers and scientists" shouldn't be held to the same standard of scrutiny as a new age snake oil salesman, perhaps because they'd fare no better?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857No, I learned a fair bit reading Scientific American, but those two sites have the most layman-centric explanations.

Scientific American doesn't have any political axes to grind. :rolleyes:

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Rather like this.  But, more accurately, like this (section

I know what you are thinking:

No.  What I'm thinking is how well can a person peer review the claims in a paper if they don't have the data and algorithms that produced it?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Yes, very fair and balanced.  Just like Fox News.

Or RealClimate.org.  Or CNN.  Or the Washington Post.  Or NPR.  Or the blogs and organizations that you've referenced.  And?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857No, it's important to let people know that the opposition (in this case) is spewing nonsense that isn't worth consideration anymore, due to the tiring number of times it has been debunked.  And yes, someone, somewhere really does take the time to address these when they come up.  No matter how many dozens of times someone throws out "Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than modern temperatures." (careful with that one, he cites sources for the data), or the more scientificy sounding "The Stefan-Boltzman law breaks the equations of global heating."  Also, watch your step, it's not RealClimate, just in case you thought I only had one source.

Let's see, their debunk for #6 says, "Scientists aren't sure what happened in the late Ordovecian period, when the world plunged into an ice age while CO2 levels were still very high (8-20x current levels)."  Wow.  That's some debunking.  

For #7 (the MWP one), he cites Mann who is not only one of the RealClimate.org people but also the original hockey stick author and upon whom the IPCC claims rely on.  Bradley also cites Mann as does the Nielsen page.  So everyone is citing Mann.  Yeah, that sure is a lot of "different" sources so I better be really careful with that.  As for Mann's buddy Jones (see the Mann and Jones paper), he' the one who told Warwick Hughes, "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."  Yeah, that's real science that can stand up to a review.

Brian Angliss claims that "every example I found" (he must be Google impaired) suggests that the evidence is anecdotal (like those anecdotal farm houses on Greenland) or regional (like the region between Greenland and New Zealand).  The problem is that the archaeological and historical evidence is not simply a few ambiguous anecdotes and there is evidence of the MWP globally.  You can even find it in tree-ring proxies if you don't exclude the records that show it.

Then Angliss must belong to the Scientific American school of mealy-mouthed non-debunk debunks.  In Debunk #8, he then answers claims that the MWP was ignored by saying that the IPCC says, "In essence, there is statistical evidence that the MWP was not warmer than the last 25 years (since 1980), but there are enough errors in the MWP data to warrant additional research into the scope (Europe? The entire Northern Hemisphere? Global?) and magnitude of the MWP."  So, in #7 he considers complaints that the MWP were warmer than today are debunked by the available research and then in #8 he cites the IPCC saying that there are enough errors in the MWP data to warrant additional research into the scale and magnitude of the MWP.  So are they certain it wasn't warmer than today or not?  I guess it depends on which "debunking" I want to look at, right?  

In debunking #10, he unintentionally provides some humor by saying, "That this cooling period existed and was global in scope is not disputable as the scope of the MWP is - scientists were directly monitoring temperatures globally by this point, and these three decades were cooler than the decades preceding them and dramatically cooler than recent decades."  In other words, they can't just magically pretend that this cooling didn't exist because the data is too good, unlike the MWP where they can pick and choose proxies to "make it go away".  The song and dance that passes for a debunking for #10 is pretty funny, too.  Yeah, the carbon dioxide is so important than all sorts of things can readily cancel it out.

For debunking #12, he claims he "can't find examples of the math involved to walk through it" for Christopher Monckton's claims.  There's that Google impairment at work again.  Monckton's sources and calculations were provided in detail with his Telegraph article and can be found here (page 24).  Even if Monckton is totally wrong, he did provide his arguments in great detail for others to tear apart.

Debunking #15 again comes from the Scientific American school of debunkings and doesn't actually debunk anything.  It simply says that the jury is out and until then, we should assume the global warming claims are true.  

I'd go on but if that's the best denier debunking you have, it's pretty sad.  That's supposed to put a nail in the coffin of global warming denial?

Quote from: StormBringer;224857So, in fact, the truth isn't self-evident.  People who think it is or should be really aren't prepared for the rigours of actually living in the real world, and I suspect are routinely baffled by things like 'scientific process', 'peer review', and 'tying shoes'.

You should really stop putting yourself down like that.  I'm sure you'll get the shoe tying thing eventually, though real science and concepts such as evidence and proof may forever remain beyond your grasp.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857It's especially difficult when so many people uncritically regurgiquote statements made by bachelors in mathmatics, who also have a smattering of philosophy and economics, as the final word; more accurate than 2,000 peer reviewed scientists who are well regarded in their field and chosen by their governments to contribute.

...because in science, it's not about data and validation but about appeals to authority.  That sound you hear is Carl Sagan rolling in his grave.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857See how long that took to read?  It took my twice as long to type out.  It's easier if I just stick with "you are utterly unqualified to discuss this", because the more you type, the clearer that is to everyone else.

Yap-yap-yap-yap.... *yawn*

Quote from: StormBringer;224857And yet, you went ahead and cited him anyway.  Ballsy, or really dumb.  I don't know which.

No, I simply don't blindly believe what his critics say.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857It's traditional to start the meetings with a stand-up comedian, as I understand it.

Ah, the deflecting non-answer.  That's traditional when a person is caught talking nonsense but isn't big enough to admit it.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857Is that all you have?  The unreliability of Wikipedia?  Surely, you didn't hang your entire case on the citation habits of one poster?

Of course you miss the point.  Accidentally?  I doubt it.

Quote from: StormBringer;224857No, I read his site.  Aside from obfuscating his message behind scads of advanced math, there is little there other than cites to articles and pages of other deniers that have been thoroughly discredited.  I really don't need to cycle through the JunkScience Web Ring, thank you.

We wouldn't want to have any advanced math in our science, would we.  But if you really spent any time looking at the site, you'd know that McIntyre provides all sorts of pretty graphs and pictures that should be just your speed.

And from that "Anti-global heating claims - a reasonably thorough debunking", I can tell that it's all been thoroughly discredited. :rolleyes:

Quote from: jgants;225189As for the environment, we've been questioning it for 30 years rather than really trying to fix it.  And so far, things have pretty much followed the predictions that were made.  I think it's time we start considering they may have been right.

Really? You mean those scary "global dimming" predictions from the 70's and the new Ice Age scares?

Now that you mention it, it is a bit chilly today.

Quote from: StormBringer;225254And yet, all you have provided so far is...  biased blogs and groups.

Given that it's hard to find an unbiased source on these topics, I suppose it's not all that surprising that it's all either of us generally come up with.

Quote from: StormBringer;225254As I mentioned, it was a stand in argument for a variety of problems caused by careless pollution emissions.  If you want to keep harping on that, people are going to notice that you are avoiding the bigger picture, and hence, don't have an argument for it.

OK.  So enumerate the variety of problems, the sorts of problems they cause, and how common these problems are.  My original complaint as that the modern environmentalist movement has an inability to distinguish between degrees and types of harm and here you are purposely refusing to address issues of degrees and types of harm opting, instead, for "a stand in argument for a variety of problems caused by careless pollution emissions".  Of course you don't define "careless", either.

Quote from: StormBringer;225254I don't personally care what you are concerned with.  The environment will be cleaned up with or without your help.

Where it makes sense, yes it will.  Where it doesn't, you'll get things like Kyoto which don't do very much and which a lot of countries simply don't comply with.

Quote from: StormBringer;225254Is there a difference, to the kids with cancer?

Of course not.  But the pollution that's created the problem has already been stopped and I already said I agree with that.

Quote from: StormBringer;225254And seriously, you were just bitching about my use of blogs, and you try to counter official New Jersey findings with an article?

Do you seriously want to argue that a blog is the equivalent of a mainstream local newspaper owned by Gannett?

Quote from: StormBringer;225254And yet, it is still higher.

Yes, but how much of that small difference has to do with pollution and how much if it has to do with demographics or regional diet differences or other causes?

Quote from: StormBringer;225254Which is nice and all, but the report I provided covers the years from 1979 to 2005.  Which, if you will notice, is the range that your data falls in.  So, in fact, the New Jersey report already covers what you mention.

Sure.  And the difference from the average is around 1 in 100,000, give or take a bit.  And if we replaced every power plant in the state with a windmill, how much would that drop?

Quote from: StormBringer;225254So, as long as the kids aren't developing cancer from coal plants, you are good?

It depends.  Remember my point about "degrees and types of harm"?  Why are they getting cancer?  What can we do about it?  What are the other costs of doing something about it?  And before you tell me that the life of a child has infinite value, we could reduce the number of automobile deaths to next to nothing if we required passenger cars to be build like NASCAR race cars with roll cages, 5-point seat belts, self-sealing fuel tanks, and required all automobile passengers to wear helmets and flame retardant suits.  Of course nobody but the very wealthy would be able to afford a car, but they'd be safe when they drove anywhere.

Quote from: StormBringer;225254Did you miss the part where I listed several sources for pollution emission?  Because I would rather not have to type all of those into every sentence.  It would take too long, it was quite clear what I was getting at, and I am not going to address your pedantic demands that this one point be fully addressed.

It's clear that you have an interest in muddying the degrees and types of harm from environmental hazards which is why I'd like to see you address a single point to some depth.

Quote from: StormBringer;225254I mean, you still haven't figured out why carbon dioxide can be a problem, you haven't clearly demonstrated that the environmentalists directly invented and implemented MTBE, and you have yet to explain why your one course in Medieval History coupled with a semester of climatology makes you more qualified to determine the validity of the methods employed by the IPCC or any other scientific body.

Carbon dioxide is supposed to be a problem because it acts as a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.  I didn't say that "environmentalists directly invented and implemented MTBE" (I'm staring to think that you have a love for straw men that dare not speak it's name), I said they were "responsible for adding MBTE to gasoline" because without the EPA regulations that mandated oxygenated fuel, they wouldn't have been putting MTBE in gas which actually contributed to poison seeping into ground water.  And my one course in Medieval history (I actually had many overall) and one class in Climatology combined with various readings on paleoclimates and history gave me reason to be skeptical of global warming claims and the sudden disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period.  That I can read and think and understand mathematics means that I can read the claim and counter claims and assess their validity.  And my experience debating issues with people that have something to hide or who are lying gives me some pretty good experience in spotting when claims that something has been "thoroughly discredited" or "absolutely proven" are a bunch of baloney.  That you were unhappy about Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit being applied to your arguments, for example, is telling.

Quote from: StormBringer;225254Your plate is pretty full now, without trying to get into some specifics.  Even if I did admit that there simply aren't any statistics regarding childhood cancer rates and the proximity to coal plants, you are still deep in the hole on a staggering number of other points.  And the claim that your biased sources are better than my biased sources isn't convincing anyone.

So you don't feel any need to be honest or show personal integrity regardless of what other people are doing?  

Quote from: StormBringer;225254So, what you said several posts ago is that a large scale change in the energy sector will cause the collapse of the economy.

That's not exactly what I said.  But I guess expecting anything but a straw man from you is too much, so let's see if we can work with this...

Quote from: StormBringer;225254So, since the scientists in question like to get paid for their work like everyone else (#2), it stands to reason that they wouldn't want to jeopardize that on a whim or flimsy evidence, especially if there was clear evidence they were completely wrong (#1).

Let me give you a counter example and see if you find it compelling:

1) The environment is on the verge of failure and if we don't act now, it will be ruined leading to all sorts of human disasters.
2) Oil executives want to lead a comfortable life.

So do you think it follow that oil executives wouldn't possibly ruin the environment?

Quote from: StormBringer;225254Therefore, the question is:  What is the scientist's motivation in destroying the economy?

What's an oil executive's interest in destroying the environment?  What's anyone's interest in destroying the environment?

Quote from: Edsan;225354Really? You mean those scary "global dimming" predictions from the 70's and the new Ice Age scares?

You forgot the predictions about overpopulation and mass starvation.

Quote from: John Morrow;225366You forgot the predictions about overpopulation and mass starvation.

And since we are speaking about all the correct predictions that the power of science granted us: where's our damn moonbases and flying cars?