[TheWOAT]

Gore sunk my scrabbleship.

[besson3c]

Who says I'm bothered? I'm just baffled as to what puts wind in your sails, that is all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who says I'm bothered? I'm just baffled as to what puts wind in your sails, that is all.

fiber and gas. Lots and lots of gas.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Well, I think we agree, ebuddy. But I have a few grains of salt I might as well unload.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

they are flying about on personal jets to tell you why you're singing is wrong and why you need to collect corn while they waste at least 12 times more than you.

I agree that Gore is making an ass out of himself, but keep in mind that ground transportation uses 10x more energy than air travel, so it's reasonable to say he's spending a dime to save a dollar.

Bush wants to reduce the nation's gasoline usage 5% annually by 2017 through increasing the fuel efficiency of passenger cars and light trucks. This proposal called '20 in 10'

I like that the two sides are communicating, and trying to compromise. That's a big improvement, and it will turn out to be more important than whatever small gains in fuel efficiency actually come from this plan.

Oh the problems though...

I thought it was weird to call it "20" in 10 when the savings is only "5" in 10. 5% is really pretty terrible. 20% is decent. Then I saw that the bulk of the plan is biofuels. I don't like biofuels. Estimates are that to fill 10% of our energy needs with bio-diesel it would take 30% of our cropland (for Europe, 70% to fill just that 10% of the demand). Also bio-diesel is worse than normal diesel from overall emissions standpoint. I prefer electric, as you can pick and choose many ways to generate it. I suppose bio-fuels are better than nothing...

But also, this plan calls for billions in tax dollars to develop alternative fuels. How does this satisfy you any more, or horrify you any less, than the fuel tax boogeyman you brought in here? The only difference I see is that Bushy proposed it, so loyal Bushies won't question it. Doesn't that strike you as kind of...partisan?

Finally, I noticed the part where "Congress Should Not Legislate A Particular Numeric Fuel Economy Standard." Huh? That sounds suspiciously like when he agreed to let the Dems interview his staff members as long as there was no record of it and they didn't have to tell the truth. I'll hold off judgement until it has a chance to work, but let's just say I'm highly skeptical.

[Buckaroo]

Speaking of conservation. I'm not sure, but I believe water softeners use a lot of water to make soft water. They also add a lot of salt to the sewage system. Like I say, I'm not sure.

Anyhow, I wonder if Al Gore is willing to give up his water softener.

BTW, post #2005 was intentionally misspelled.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I agree that Gore is making an ass out of himself, but keep in mind that ground transportation uses 10x more energy than air travel, so it's reasonable to say he's spending a dime to save a dollar.

This sounds sufficiently vague and inaccurate. Do you have a link?

I thought it was weird to call it "20" in 10 when the savings is only "5" in 10. 5% is really pretty terrible. 20% is decent.

The plan does have two parts; 35 Billion Gallons Of Renewable And Alternative Fuels In 2017 – Nearly Five Times The 2012 Target Now In Law. In 2017, this will displace 15 percent of projected annual gasoline use. 15% and Raising CAFE standards for an additional 5%. 15+5= 20% in 10 years. i.e. 20 in 10.

Then I saw that the bulk of the plan is biofuels. I don't like biofuels. Estimates are that to fill 10% of our energy needs with bio-diesel it would take 30% of our cropland (for Europe, 70% to fill just that 10% of the demand).

... I believe less reprehensible than paying farmers not to grow.

Also bio-diesel is worse than normal diesel from overall emissions standpoint.

Though the study is a little convoluted. It's not quite as cut and dry as "biodiesel is worse than normal diesel". What they're saying is biodiesel derived from rapeseed is more environmentally friendly than standard diesel within the combustion engine, but the concerns are the gasses released from the literal farming of rapeseed. Their conclusion is that if the rapeseed crops were used for planting trees instead of rapeseed, the total affect would be more friendly than biodiesel. I'd have to read more in depth, but at the surface it sounds like a huge stretch to fit a desired end. Perhaps that's just the skeptical side. The EPA and just about any other study you can find will attest to the superiority of biodiesel both on the environment and in benefit to growers over standard diesel.

I prefer electric, as you can pick and choose many ways to generate it. I suppose bio-fuels are better than nothing...

Efficient electric generation has a ways to go before it can be implemented en masse. If we wait too long we'll hit peak oil, the sky will fall in a black plume of smoke, and all the ants will have folded their little legs and died. The locusts are coming.

But also, this plan calls for billions in tax dollars to develop alternative fuels. How does this satisfy you any more, or horrify you any less, than the fuel tax boogeyman you brought in here?

The above seems a smidgen myopic to me. A fuel cost increase is a direct, immediate, and tangible increase in cost to all. Cutting other forms of waste and pork in Washington, granting tax breaks to all sectors and using a portion of current tax income for beneficial purposes is what we're paying them to do. By being better stewards of their current income, there's no need to seek more. There is no notion of increasing taxes on the collective to fund this plan.

The only difference I see is that Bushy proposed it, so loyal Bushies won't question it. Doesn't that strike you as kind of...partisan?

Your statement? Patently! Again, we're not seeing anything as wrong or right, only right or left. Isn't this line of questioning a little below you? "Bushies", "loyal bushies"? I mean c'mon man. You stated that no one is doing anything. I cited corporations and some government action on the issue and this is the best you've got? You should be ashamed of yourself. Especially when talking to someone who has railed plenty on the current Administration.

Finally, I noticed the part where "Congress Should Not Legislate A Particular Numeric Fuel Economy Standard." Huh? That sounds suspiciously like when he agreed to let the Dems interview his staff members as long as there was no record of it and they didn't have to tell the truth. I'll hold off judgement until it has a chance to work, but let's just say I'm highly skeptical.

You have the right to be skeptical, but as you mentioned before, something is better than nothing. Regulating an already-vulnerable vehicle manufacturer by imposing specific numerical standards at the Federal Level is why prior Administrations didn't want to touch this issue. You may find the concession reprehensible, but again we're talking about getting started. The next President (D), can finish the job.

Right?

*Hint - don't say; "no... LEFT!!!"

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This sounds sufficiently vague and inaccurate. Do you have a link?

Ok my google-fu was weak last night, and I could only find the DOE's "kids page," but I've seen it in "grown-up" talk before too. A few months ago I was going to argue that surely reducing oil usage should target air travel, but checking my facts beforehand convinced me otherwise.

... I believe less reprehensible than paying farmers not to grow.

But 30% of farmland for just 10% of our needs? Doesn't that tell you this is not going to be an expandable solution?

Though the study is a little convoluted. It's not quite as cut and dry as "biodiesel is worse than normal diesel". What they're saying is biodiesel derived from rapeseed is more environmentally friendly than standard diesel within the combustion engine, but the concerns are the gasses released from the literal farming of rapeseed. Their conclusion is that if the rapeseed crops were used for planting trees instead of rapeseed, the total affect would be more friendly than biodiesel. I'd have to read more in depth, but at the surface it sounds like a huge stretch to fit a desired end. Perhaps that's just the skeptical side. The EPA and just about any other study you can find will attest to the superiority of biodiesel both on the environment and in benefit to growers over standard diesel.

This study is more recent, and at least in scope, more thorough. It's hard to get a new study published that contradicts previous findings if it's less thorough than the previous findings it contradicts.

Efficient electric generation has a ways to go before it can be implemented en masse.

I find that hard to believe when we have such a massive use of electricity in this country already. 80% of my electricity comes from hydro, but the same principals of hydro can be applied to geothermal. Also you can pool the electricity from all different kinds of generators, including what I think is most relevant, which is that people can generate it on their own property if they like energy independence. I don't think that's true of any other fuel medium.

"Bushies", "loyal bushies"? I mean c'mon man.

That was a reference to the attorney firings issue. Some of the internal GOP emails said those guys weren't being "loyal bushies." Sorry if you missed that.

I cited corporations and some government action on the issue

I appreciate that trucking thing, but I was more interested in the industries that actually make the vehicles. And state of the union talk is a far cry from government action. It sounds like the run-around. But it's better than nothing.

Regulating an already-vulnerable vehicle manufacturer by imposing specific numerical standards

It's my understanding that one of the reasons the manufacturers are "already-vulnerable" is exactly because their efficiencies aren't competitive with foreign auto-makers. If that's not it, then what is it? Why are we behind?

[Macrobat]

That's all well and good, Unc, but even with all that ominous-looking chart data, CO2 still compreises less than a single percentage point of total greenhouse gases, yet all the concentration is on CO2.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

That's all well and good, Unc, but even with all that ominous-looking chart data, CO2 still compreises less than a single percentage point of total greenhouse gases, yet all the concentration is on CO2.

nope.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

That's all well and good, Unc, but even with all that ominous-looking chart data, CO2 still compreises less than a single percentage point of total greenhouse gases, yet all the concentration is on CO2.

That sounds similar to what I've argued in other threads, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Which chart do you find ominous-looking? What's your basis for "less than 1%?"

FYI, CO2 gets more than its fair share of interest, because its ecological half-life is longer than the other greenhouse gases. Personally I think air travel should get more scrutiny in the global warming issue because of contrails that are made of the most potent greenhouse gas (water), but in this thread we've been talking about wasting fuel, not about greenhouse gas, so it's not really relevant. Also I don't have any data to support this opinion.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

nope.

Duh, yep.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eso...ssd6_iq8BnhD2Q

Whereas Earth's atmosphere contains only about 0.03 percent C02 . . .

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Duh, yep.

Astronomy: The Solar System and Beyond - Google Book Search

Read the post to which I responded please.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Read the post to which I responded please.

I wrote the post to which you responded. The VAST majority of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I wrote the post to which you responded. The VAST majority of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

So you did

The reason that people aren't concerned with water vapor is that it is naturally occuring and self-regulating. Humans don't produce appreciable amounts of water vapor. Also, too much water vapor in the air? it rains.

The only number I've seen that shows an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere puts it at 0.04 ppm/year. Contrast that with ~1 ppm/year for CO2.

[edit: sorry, i had it at 330 ppm/year for CO2. Wrong!]

Airplanes do not produce water vapor. That water is already in the atmosphere, it just changes state. Contrails reflect energy from the sun away from earth, causing cooling. Airplanes do produce CO2 (and soot which cools as well) though and they do contribute greatly in that respect.

[Macrobat]

Um, hate to point out the obvious, but CO2 is also naturally occurring.

330 ppm of the same CO2 that composes .03 percent of the total atmosphere?

There is no way you aren't getting this.

lol

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Um, hate to point out the obvious, but CO2 is also naturally occurring.

...but not self-regulating, hence, the concern.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

330 ppm of the same CO2 that composes .03 percent of the total atmosphere?

Small doesn't always mean insignificant.

Greenhouse gases increase the temp of the atmosphere by 33C. Without that 1% that is greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, the earth would be a giant snowball.

Another problem is that even small increases in CO2 levels cause increases in water vapor levels. More heat = more evaporation. More evaporation = more heat.

Water vapor levels, again, are self-regulating but the levels increase with heat. CO2 levels are not self-regulating and are something that we could control. That is why the concern is over CO2 levels - they cause the positive feedback mechanism that is warming the planet (via which ever greenhouse gas you personally choose to blame).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok my google-fu was weak last night, and I could only find the DOE's "kids page," but I've seen it in "grown-up" talk before too. A few months ago I was going to argue that surely reducing oil usage should target air travel, but checking my facts beforehand convinced me otherwise.

Interesting. I'd be curious in seeing comparative data. In other words, on the surface it would seem obvious that air travel (something many people do a couple of times a year) would pale in comparison to something almost everyone does daily, but I think if you compared a bus of 60 people to a plane of 60 people to the same A to B you'd find the plane to be more destructive to the environment. Not too relevant, just a curiosity.

But 30% of farmland for just 10% of our needs? Doesn't that tell you this is not going to be an expandable solution?

I'd see the potential for many a farmer to get back on line. If you've ever driven cross-country, there's no shortage of open land to be farmed. I'm thinking they're using current land-space used for commercial farming as opposed to potential, available land. That said, I agree that this is only a "stall tactic" of sorts to perfect more efficient means of solving the problem.

This study is more recent, and at least in scope, more thorough. It's hard to get a new study published that contradicts previous findings if it's less thorough than the previous findings it contradicts.

I don't think it's necessarily more thorough. I think it's really more of a stretch in that it may not be founded on a reasonable premise. "replace farmland with trees", etc...

I find that hard to believe when we have such a massive use of electricity in this country already. 80% of my electricity comes from hydro, but the same principals of hydro can be applied to geothermal. Also you can pool the electricity from all different kinds of generators, including what I think is most relevant, which is that people can generate it on their own property if they like energy independence. I don't think that's true of any other fuel medium.

While I agree that energy generation is not complex; energy storage certainly is. I was interested in seeing what it would take to power my home on solar energy exclusively. Needless to say, the set-up cost alone is prohibitive to most and the batteries necessary to store the produced energy would take up a quarter of my lot. I'm certainly not opposed to nuclear or hydro and I'd support that shift in culture here locally.

That was a reference to the attorney firings issue. Some of the internal GOP emails said those guys weren't being "loyal bushies." Sorry if you missed that.

I missed it.

I appreciate that trucking thing, but I was more interested in the industries that actually make the vehicles. And state of the union talk is a far cry from government action. It sounds like the run-around. But it's better than nothing.

It's more than a state of the union talking point, it was a proposal that is stalled in Congress as of March of this year. I cited the engineering conference because aside from making the vehicles, they're the ones designing them. They're on the payrolls of a great many auto manufacturers.

It's my understanding that one of the reasons the manufacturers are "already-vulnerable" is exactly because their efficiencies aren't competitive with foreign auto-makers. If that's not it, then what is it? Why are we behind?

While that may be one of the reasons, it's only one of many. Curiously, Honda, Mitsubishi, Kia, BMW, Porsche, etc... all now offer SUVs in their product lines. The success of Japanese cars in the early 1980s was attributed to quality, workmanship, and low operating costs (Yates 1984). Japanese cars had a better repair record than most American cars from 1981-1985 ("Frequency of Repair Records, 1980-1985" 1986). While the quality of American cars improved over time the perception that they were inferior to Japanese cars continued (Moskal 1989; Treece, Maremont, and Armstrong 1988). According to Krafcik, U.S. plants had 89 defects per 100 cars versus 47 per 100 in Japanese plants in 1987-1988 (Treece, Maremont, and Armstrong 1988). There are numerous studies like the above and the results are all very similar.

"US cars are crappy" is a stigma I'm afraid we're still fighting. Our hybrid lines still don't compete as well and that's more of an apples to apples comparison establishing the notion that foreign cars are superior. While I think the tables have turned somewhat, people still don't buy it. Literally.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Interesting. I'd be curious in seeing comparative data. In other words, on the surface it would seem obvious that air travel (something many people do a couple of times a year) would pale in comparison to something almost everyone does daily, but I think if you compared a bus of 60 people to a plane of 60 people to the same A to B you'd find the plane to be more destructive to the environment. Not too relevant, just a curiosity.

Even the more relevant comparison (ignoring the user number matching) puts buses ahead of planes:
Fuel efficiency in transportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In BTU's used per passenger-mile, buses on average in the US use 4160 and planes use 3587, but that's with 8.7 passengers per bus. I've never ridden a bus across country, but I imagine there's more than 9 people on each one.

As for Gore specifically though, if he gets to the venue 5x faster flying instead of busing and that gives him the time to sway twice as many people to the cause, it's worth it to him to use twice as much fuel to do it. Of course, if the irony of that act turns people away that otherwise wouldn't be, he's probably not counting them

I don't think it's necessarily more thorough. I think it's really more of a stretch in that it may not be founded on a reasonable premise. "replace farmland with trees", etc...

If you can get farmers to use otherwise unused land for biodiesel crops, why can't you get them to use it for selling "carbon offsets?"

While I agree that energy generation is not complex; energy storage certainly is. I was interested in seeing what it would take to power my home on solar energy exclusively. Needless to say, the set-up cost alone is prohibitive to most and the batteries necessary to store the produced energy would take up a quarter of my lot. I'm certainly not opposed to nuclear or hydro and I'd support that shift in culture here locally.

Did you look into hydro as a storage medium on your own property?

it was a proposal that is stalled in Congress as of March of this year.

Negotiation is part of government, it's part of checks-and-balances. That's why Bush vetoed the army funding bill this week, too.

While that may be one of the reasons, it's only one of many. Curiously, Honda, Mitsubishi, Kia, BMW, Porsche, etc... all now offer SUVs in their product lines.

Here's what I don't get about this. If we raise the CAFE standards, how does that hurt the American companies more than the foreign ones? Don't the same restrictions apply equally to all?

[Buckaroo]

Global warming debunked

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.


Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.
"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?
"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

[OldManMac]

Well, it appears the issue has just been settled.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If Augie Auer told us to get out of Iraq, you can be darn sure besson3c would start a thread about it.

No wait, he probably wouldn't.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Global warming debunked

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Enough said.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Enough said.

Just because a Professor of Atmospheric Science speaks to a group of farmers, he has no credibility?

You certainly don't have any credibility in Atmospheric Science. How many years have you dedicated to the science of atmospheric conditions?

August H. (Augie) Auer Jr is an atmospheric scientist and meteorologist in New Zealand.

Auer was a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming for 22 years.[1] A land use typing method to classify land as urban or rural, based on work he published in 1978, is used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and by the Jamaican National Environment and Planning Agency.[2] His most frequently cited research paper involves ice crystals in clouds.[3]

August H. Auer, Jr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Just because a Professor of Atmospheric Science speaks to a group of farmers, he has no credibility?

Not that he has no credibility, but it certainly puts much of it to doubt. A real scientist making these kinds of claims would not be talking to ****ing farmers (lol, just shows who'll listen to him), but to the vast sea of other scientists who disagree with his conclusions.

You certainly don't have any credibility in Atmospheric Science. How many years have you dedicated to the science of atmospheric conditions?

This is completely irrelevant. I merely support the consensus position among climatologists.

August H. (Augie) Auer Jr is an atmospheric scientist and meteorologist in New Zealand.

Auer was a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming for 22 years.[1] A land use typing method to classify land as urban or rural, based on work he published in 1978, is used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and by the Jamaican National Environment and Planning Agency.[2] His most frequently cited research paper involves ice crystals in clouds.[3]

August H. Auer, Jr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wonderful, and there are many more scientists who are more qualified than he that disagree with him. Show me something that shows he's respected by other scientists, has had his claims and research published in respectable journals like Science and Nature; then his opinion will matter.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Not that he has no credibility, but it certainly puts much of it to doubt. A real scientist making these kinds of claims would not be talking to ****ing farmers, but to the vast sea of other scientists who disagree with his conclusions.

This is completely irrelevant. I merely support the consensus position among climatologists.

Wonderful, and there are many more scientists who are more qualified than he that disagree with him.

He can talk to whomever he wants. More important, what is wrong with him talking to a bunch of farmers. Their livelyhood depends on his knowledge. Oh, I'll bet you think all farmers are a bunch of moronic idiots that can't think for themselves.

I'll bet you get your science from DiCaprio. Like DiCaprio has got a brain. HA!!!!

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

He can talk to whomever he wants. More important, what is wrong with him talking to a bunch of farmers. Their livelyhood depends on his knowledge. Oh, I'll bet you think all farmers are a bunch of moronic idiots that can't think for themselves.

No, I believe that farmers don't know **** about climate science. Like I said in my edited post, it just goes to show who he has left to listen to him.

I'll bet you get your science from DiCaprio. Like DiCaprio has got a brain. HA!!!!

Thanks, it's quotes like these that remind me not to take you seriously.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

No, I believe that farmers don't know **** about climate science. Like I said in my edited post, it just goes to show who he has left to listen to him.

I'd venture to guess that farmers have a lot more vested interest in climate science than you. Why would you suppose they don't know **** about climate science?

Thanks, it's quotes like these that remind me not to take you seriously.

egadz. That's just what I was about to say.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd venture to guess that farmers have a lot more vested interest in climate science than you. Why would you suppose they don't know **** about climate science?

I never disputed their "invested interest," however I would argue that everyone has a strong, vested interest in climate science to the extent that the climate affects their ability to live. Just because they have a vested interest doesn't mean they know much about it, their specialty, as far as I know (I could be wrong), is in farming, not analyzing the impact that humans have had on the global climate and whether or not the concentration levels of CO2 are going to lead us to an uninhabitable planet. Farmers usually spend their days... farming, not sitting in a laboratory analyzing atmospheric trends and concentration levels, and they generally tend to lack a PhD in Climatology.

Was it really necessary for me to spell that out for you?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I never disputed their "invested interest," however I would argue that everyone has a strong, vested interest in climate science to the extent that the climate affects their ability to live.

Seeing as the gentleman in question was addressing a convention of farmers, I'll reiterate that they have more of a vested interest in climate science than the average person. In fact, one could argue that the late 1700's having ushered in the Old Farmer's Almanac including the study of astronomical events, tides, weather, and other phenomena with respect to time and how one impacted the other, farmers likely birthed climate science. Again, they are more interested than most and I'd venture to guess they understand more about climatology and climate science than what you've gleaned from National Geographic. To not know farming employs science is ignorant. To say they don't know **** about climate science is patently moronic. You don't know **** about farming.

Just because they have a vested interest doesn't mean they know much about it, their specialty, as far as I know (I could be wrong), is in farming, not analyzing the impact that humans have had on the global climate and whether or not the concentration levels of CO2 are going to lead us to an uninhabitable planet. Farmers usually spend their days... farming, not sitting in a laboratory analyzing atmospheric trends and concentration levels, and they generally tend to lack a PhD in Climatology.

Spare me the dramatic tripe about whether or not there will be an "uninhabitable planet" because as far as I've read, scientists argue there's too much popular hype surrounding the issue and the facts have been clouded by this type of drama. You might know there are a wealth of scientists who do not wholesale buy into the 'manmade' aspect of Global Warming and I've yet to see any meaningful quantification of our contribution to it.

After all, this may be the kind of hype that has Al Gore traveling via personal jet on his crusade against industry, but without that coveted PhD in climate science he's obviously not worth listening to. Right?

Was it really necessary for me to spell that out for you?

As a matter of fact it was. You've wrapped this thread up neatly. Thank you.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Seeing as the gentleman in question was addressing a convention of farmers, I'll reiterate that they have more of a vested interest in climate science than the average person. In fact, one could argue that the late 1700's having ushered in the Old Farmer's Almanac including the study of astronomical events, tides, weather, and other phenomena with respect to time and how one impacted the other, farmers likely birthed climate science. Again, they are more interested than most and I'd venture to guess they understand more about climatology and climate science than what you've gleaned from National Geographic.

I actually agree with most of that.

To not know farming employs science is ignorant. To say they don't know **** about climate science is patently moronic.

I never said that farming doesn't employ science, that would have been indeed a moronic thing to say. My point, something you insist on ignoring, is that there is a difference between knowing what kind of weather allows for what kinds of farming conditions and what kind of fertilizer is best used on what kind of soil and what are the best methods for ensuring future crop growth... etc. There is a massive difference between all that and what the climate scientists who study global warming do, no?

You don't know **** about farming.

This I will admit, though I do know what farming is not.

Spare me the dramatic tripe about whether or not there will be an "uninhabitable planet" because as far as I've read, scientists argue there's too much popular hype surrounding the issue and the facts have been clouded by this type of drama. You might know there are a wealth of scientists who do not wholesale buy into the 'manmade' aspect of Global Warming and I've yet to see any meaningful quantification of our contribution to it.

Kind of a hard thing to do, to separate that data out and think, "What would it have been had we not been here?" We do know that if we use the amount that was in the atmosphere before the Industrial Revolution as a benchmark, it comes out to a significant increase. The graphs are freely available online and have been posted many times. As to the effect that such an increase in CO2 has on global temperature, that I don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure this is available if you search for it.

After all, this may be the kind of hype that has Al Gore traveling via personal jet on his crusade against industry, but without that coveted PhD in climate science he's obviously not worth listening to. Right?

Anything that Gore says that can be considered to be "original research," yes, indeed that is likely not worth listening to, but the thing is, is that the data he presents he did not himself produce. So uh... yeah, as long as he just repeats in lay terms what "PhDs" already know, it's just fine.

[Buckaroo]

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

but without that coveted PhD in climate science he's obviously not worth listening to. Right?

The burden of credibility is a lot higher when you're disagreeing with the scientific consensus.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

Anything that Gore says that can be considered to be "original research," yes, indeed that is likely not worth listening to, but the thing is, is that the data he presents he did not himself produce. So uh... yeah, as long as he just repeats in lay terms what "PhDs" already know, it's just fine.

... except for the small problem of Al Gore having misrepresented a great many facts he's attempting to repeat and a host of climate scientists on record as having challenged this "lay-m" attempt. Not withstanding, too many of the facts he's presented have not been authored by climate scientists, but by self-proclaimed "climate experts". For the weath of graphs you suggest exist online, there are a wealth of real climate scientists providing graphs of their own.

One example; Gore states, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap."
- Climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball states this is misleading; "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Another example; Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over the supposed time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" These are two of, but many credentialed experts who disagree with much of what Gore is supposing. What is more understood and more easily quantifiable is; "on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun."

Eliminating the internal combustion engine is not going to influence the brightness of the sun, but it is a tempting supposition made by the various lobbyists with a chip on their shoulder and Global Warming scare-mongers interested in more research grants.

Quantification is important because if you're going to suggest global warming is a man-made phenomena, the question "to what degree?" is obligatory. Especially when taking into account the suggested, drastic changes to be made.

If in one breath you claim to know little about farming yet are comfortable enough to question their knowledge by stating; "they don't know **** about climate science." In the other, you're giving credibility to one who has employed a host of scientists not directly involved in climate science, guilty of misrepresenting key facts of the issue while stating unabashedly that a climate science Professor lacks credibility simply because he's hosting a seminar of farmers, an occupation you admittedly know little about. I just don't see how your line of reasoning adds up to a cogent argument.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The burden of credibility is a lot higher when you're disagreeing with the scientific consensus.

The burden of credibility is high either way. The consensus is warming, not the degree of man's contribution to it. The overall focus of this thread is on one man with focus on man's contribution to warming and the subsequent advocation of change. In this instance, the burden of credibility is extremely high IMO. Not withstanding the fact that scientific advancement is littered with examples of "fringe" scientists who bucked consensus by challenging the rut of conventional wisdom prevalent in the establishment.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For the weath of graphs you suggest exist online, there are a wealth of real climate scientists providing graphs of their own.
...
- Climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball states this is misleading
...
Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified
...
These are two of, but many credentialed experts who disagree with much of what Gore is supposing

*snort*

When you say "credentialed experts" and "Tim Ball" in the same sentence, every shred of credibility your argument had goes into the shitter. But hey, I've already pointed this out to you numerous times, so it doesn't surprise me you'd bring it up again...and again.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The burden of credibility is high either way.

It's higher for things you claim which contradict the consensus (which is exactly what I said). Why would this be? It's logical if you think about it. The consensus isn't there just by default. It started out as a hypothesis, then became a theory, and was repeatedly tested against empirical evidence throughout this process. In order to challenge it after all this, you have to not only explain away the previous evidence, you also have to present new evidence which supports your new claim more than it supports the consensus. This does happen, of course, it happens all the time. But it happens in the context of new studies with evidence in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Not in keynote addresses at the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers, without any evidence to back it up.

The consensus is warming, not the degree of man's contribution to it.

The consensus is at least more than 50% of the warming is man-made. That's what the IPCC stated, and the IPCC's specific purpose was to be as conservative as necessary so that there could be no reasonable dissent, in other words, conservative enough to constitute "the consensus."

The overall focus of this thread is on one man with focus on man's contribution to warming and the subsequent advocation of change. In this instance, the burden of credibility is extremely high IMO.

For those things he said which are supported by the consensus (which are not the most activist things, but which are the bulk of the message and of the data he presented), he meets that standard. The consensus is only the consensus in the first place because it is supported by large amounts of evidence and credibility.

Not withstanding the fact that scientific advancement is littered with examples of "fringe" scientists who bucked consensus by challenging the rut of conventional wisdom prevalent in the establishment.

Again, these individuals were only able to succeed in overturning the consensus by presenting especially convincing data and evidence which demonstrated their case. The standard of credibility for them was much higher than those of the consensus they bucked, and they met that higher standard with evidence, because it turns out they were right. If climate skeptics were really right, they would have a lot more evidence of it than they have now. I wish they were/are right, and I really wish they would gather that evidence instead of making so much noise.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What is more understood and more easily quantifiable is; "on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun."

Oh what the hell, I might as well comment on this too.

The sentence could be re-written as "there is a very good historical correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as radiation from the Sun, which is often used as fodder by climate skeptics and popular media. Unfortunately, that correlation only exists up until about 1980, after which measured "celestial phenomena" goes down but Earth's temperature just keeps going up, which is why said popular media such as the infamous Global Warming Swindle show pretty little graphs which conveniently end after 1980."

Better?

greg

[itistoday]

Nice job Uncle Skeleton and ShortcutToMoncton, saved me the trouble.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh what the hell, I might as well comment on this too.

The sentence could be re-written as "there is a very good historical correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as radiation from the Sun, which is often used as fodder by climate skeptics and popular media. Unfortunately, that correlation only exists up until about 1980, after which measured "celestial phenomena" goes down but Earth's temperature just keeps going up, which is why said popular media such as the infamous Global Warming Swindle show pretty little graphs which conveniently end after 1980."

Better?

greg

Here, I found a graph:

[Uncle Skeleton]

The X-axis is totally f-ed up. I don't buy it.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Eliminating the internal combustion engine is not going to influence the brightness of the sun, but it is a tempting supposition made by the various lobbyists with a chip on their shoulder and Global Warming scare-mongers interested in more research grants.

In addition to what the others have said, I just wanted to point out that if you really believe this, that scientists are up in arms about Global Warming because they want research grants, it just goes to show how utterly delusional you really are.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The global warming scare industry isn't making money on grants. But it is making money. Buy this car, buy that refridgerator, buy these light bulbs, buy this insulation, buy these nuclear reactors and windmills and solar arrays. No thanks.

Reduce, reuse, recycle, those are fine, and they predate the global warming scare campaign. But you gotta admit they weren't bringing in the bucks, and now they're down-played in the rhetoric in favor of SUV hating. I think they would make a far bigger difference than manufacturing a new fleet of hybrid cars.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The global warming scare industry isn't making money on grants. But it is making money. Buy this car, buy that refridgerator, buy these light bulbs, buy this insulation, buy these nuclear reactors and windmills and solar arrays. No thanks.

Reduce, reuse, recycle, those are fine, and they predate the global warming scare campaign. But you gotta admit they weren't bringing in the bucks, and now they're down-played in the rhetoric in favor of SUV hating. I think they would make a far bigger difference than manufacturing a new fleet of hybrid cars.

...huh? What's wrong with companies being innovative and "ahead of the curve" and jumping at the opportunity to make money in an emerging field?

Seriously, I have a hard time with people who say they don't like the fearmongering and scaremongering of the left-sided "oh the earth will teh die by global warming!" bit, and then when some good right-sided corporate businessman looks at the situation and says "damn, we can make this product that doesn't pollute like all the others and make a lot of money with it!" suddenly such a supremely capitalist scheme is viewed with suspicion and distrust.

Again, should one choose not to buy a new climate-marketed product, that's your right. I fail to see how it's a "bad" thing that companies wishing to be on the cutting edge of a new market want you to buy their products, however...because as far as I can see, little to none of that money is going into the science itself.

greg

[ebuddy]

Say what you will. I'll be here in 10 years to verify the claims. I suspect there will be more evidence either way by then. No matter what scientist is brought up, either he sleeps with goats or likes to pinch one off in the shower drain. It never fails. I could literally cite hundreds of scientists, Professors, and "climate science experts" who argue against the man-made suppositions and y'all would continue to say anything up to and including; "He's not credible because he's talking to farmers!" It never ends. Continue to judge all these issues by your arbitrary gauges, it really doesn't concern me in the least.

In the meantime, I bike 26 miles a day to and from work so I'd venture to guess I'm doing more than most anyway, even if only for the health benefit.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Say what you will. I'll be here in 10 years to verify the claims. I suspect there will be more evidence either way by then. No matter what scientist is brought up, either he sleeps with goats or likes to pinch one off in the shower drain. It never fails. I could literally cite hundreds of scientists, Professors, and "climate science experts" who argue against the man-made suppositions and y'all would continue to say anything up to and including; "He's not credible because he's talking to farmers!" It never ends. Continue to judge all these issues by your arbitrary gauges, it really doesn't concern me in the least.

And this is how it usually ends. 'cept they come back again and again, then someone points out the flaw in what they're saying, and the cycle repeats.

In the meantime, I bike 26 miles a day to and from work so I'd venture to guess I'm doing more than most anyway, even if only for the health benefit.

26 miles??? That's insane! Props to you!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

And this is how it usually ends. 'cept they come back again and again, then someone points out the flaw in what they're saying, and the cycle repeats.

That's just it though, I've not seen a refutation of the points, I've just seen refutation of the people. Someone says; "professor such and such says..." and then I say; "but professor such and thus says something different" and then the first person says; "but professor such and thus sleeps with goats and talks to farmers". This is why those who don't wholesale by into the hype return. They've not been satisfactorily addressed.

26 miles??? That's insane! Props to you!

It actually doesn't have to be that far, but I tried the direct route going through the main streets and decided that was too risky at rush hour. I've found one trail that connects to another, but it happens to take me six miles out of the way. Oh well.

I appreciate the kudos. After all, I was fishing for something along those lines.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Here, I found a graph:

I love it. That is too funny. And it may even be true. . . well, depending on your perspective.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's just it though, I've not seen a refutation of the points, I've just seen refutation of the people.

See my post above re: solar radiation.

Unfortunately, in today's age of complicated science very few Tom, Dick and/or Harrys can make bold claims without having something to back them up. As has been pointed out, while there may be bold visionaries who stood out from the crowd throughout the history of science, there are equally bold visionaries who may have had near-prophetic ideas that were scoffed at and kicked to the proverbial wayside because of their inability to provide a reason for their ideas...only to have someone, somewhere along the line, more-or-less "steal" their glory because they could actually get people to understand and/or accept the theory and/or logic behind their idea(s).

And this is where every single one of your "citations" fails. In my not-so-humble opinion, this is where most of you right-wingers get things ass-backwards; you point to anthropogenic climate change believers such as myself and say "you guys are pseudo-religiously brainwashed zealots!" As far as I'm concerned, the reality is completely the opposite: I am convinced by logic, sound reasoning, and science as best we know it, while the skeptics practice an oddly fervent rejection of anything that smacks of pro-climate-change. I believe I have probably studied every single plausible objection that I've heard on these forums (solar radiation, volcanoes, Mars warming, cooling earth regions, etc. etc.), and found reasonable and scientific rebuttals to each one. Until you provide me with something that can't be shot down in a couple paragraphs, then you simply haven't got a leg to stand on.

Once again: when you cite someone like Tim Ball, it is thoroughly alright to say "whoops, Tim Ball, there goes your argument"; because, after all, Tim Ball has never done anything useful in the field, and has never proposed any other reasonably backed theory to explain the current climate-change problem.

Saying "no, climate change isn't anthropogenic" isn't good enough; a mountain of evidence collected thus far suggests that it is. Unfortunately, no one that you have yet cited – and, in fact, no one else period - has been able to say "no, climate change isn't anthropogenic because of this, this, and this" and been able to back up their points. Not one. By all means, keep on working at finding someone (I'd gladly read it), but I warn you, the anti-consensus success rate on these forums (from the ozone hole deniers to the Iraq war supporters to the global warming deniers) has been dismally low.

greg

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

See my post above re: solar radiation.

Unfortunately, in today's age of complicated science very few Tom, Dick and/or Harrys can make bold claims without having something to back them up. As has been pointed out, while there may be bold visionaries who stood out from the crowd throughout the history of science, there are equally bold visionaries who may have had near-prophetic ideas that were scoffed at and kicked to the proverbial wayside because of their inability to provide a reason for their ideas...only to have someone, somewhere along the line, more-or-less "steal" their glory because they could actually get people to understand and/or accept the theory and/or logic behind their idea(s).

And this is where every single one of your "citations" fails. In my not-so-humble opinion, this is where most of you right-wingers get things ass-backwards; you point to anthropogenic climate change believers such as myself and say "you guys are pseudo-religiously brainwashed zealots!" As far as I'm concerned, the reality is completely the opposite: I am convinced by logic, sound reasoning, and science as best we know it, while the skeptics practice an oddly fervent rejection of anything that smacks of pro-climate-change. I believe I have probably studied every single plausible objection that I've heard on these forums (solar radiation, volcanoes, Mars warming, cooling earth regions, etc. etc.), and found reasonable and scientific rebuttals to each one. Until you provide me with something that can't be shot down in a couple paragraphs, then you simply haven't got a leg to stand on.

Once again: when you cite someone like Tim Ball, it is thoroughly alright to say "whoops, Tim Ball, there goes your argument"; because, after all, Tim Ball has never done anything useful in the field, and has never proposed any other reasonably backed theory to explain the current climate-change problem.

Saying "no, climate change isn't anthropogenic" isn't good enough; a mountain of evidence collected thus far suggests that it is. Unfortunately, no one that you have yet cited – and, in fact, no one else period - has been able to say "no, climate change isn't anthropogenic because of this, this, and this" and been able to back up their points. Not one. By all means, keep on working at finding someone (I'd gladly read it), but I warn you, the anti-consensus success rate on these forums (from the ozone hole deniers to the Iraq war supporters to the global warming deniers) has been dismally low.

greg

Well lets start with April has been the coldest April in a century.

Look the weather always changes. It's a fact. It will get hot and cold. The issue is, that Man kind has very very little affect on global warming. He has a great affect on polution, but less than 1% affect on global warming.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...huh? What's wrong with companies being innovative and "ahead of the curve" and jumping at the opportunity to make money in an emerging field?

Nothing is wrong with that. But don't make it a "way of life" if profits are all there is to it.

Again, should one choose not to buy a new climate-marketed product, that's your right. I fail to see how it's a "bad" thing that companies wishing to be on the cutting edge of a new market want you to buy their products

It's not. I only said that arguements of "right" and "wrong" lose their luster when they involve someone making gobs of money off it. It's not the gobs that suffer. It's only the appeals to morality that do.