Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Al Gore Part 2: Liar Liar Pants on Fire

Al Gore Part 2: Liar Liar Pants on Fire (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2012, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right, so why do we have evidence of suppressing data that conflicts with the foregone conclusion?
What evidence?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why do you not accept the fact that we've attained evidence that scientists were submitting papers to their fellows for peer review? Why don't you acknowledge that there are scientists writing their cronies at journals encouraging them not to publish the credible works of others? And why weren't the errors identified not addressed with a formal review of the data instead of kneejerk slander against "deniers" only to move the erroneous parts into a larger schematic of erroneous data?
Citations, please.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Don't pretend to tell me how the process works pigeon.
I feel compelled to explain because you've demonstrated that you still don't understand how it works.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
...particularly that perpetuated by CRU and the IPCC which is your "99% of experts in the field".
I have never referenced the CRU or IPCC in this thread to support my argument. I gave several examples already of scientific organizations that came to the same conclusion regarding a scientific consensus on the subject matter.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Mob doesn't rule here and you're not some crusader of truth. At best, you might be mildly interested in SCIENCE!™
Glad we agree on something.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Citations, please.
  • Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.” But D’Aleo noted that he believes there is “very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.”
  • Meteorologist D’Aleo had nothing but praise for the conference. “It was the best climate conference I have attended in my 30 years in the professional societies. The two-day meeting featured over 100 excellent presentations made by scientists from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States,” D’Aleo wrote on his website ICECAP on March 4. [Note: The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, only 52 scientists participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process. Many current and former UN scientists disagree with the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and many of them attended the skeptical climate conference in New York. In addition, the so-called “consensus” statements by scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union are only voted on by two dozen or so governing board members with no direct vote cast by rank-and-file scientists]
  • Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review: “It is my belief that the strident and frequent claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data. […] Too many people are too confident about too many things. That was the simple message of the Heartland conference, and one that I hope sinks in.”
  • Per James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."


I feel compelled to explain because you've demonstrated that you still don't understand how it works.
No, your problem with my perspective is that I acknowledge the inherent human nature in such highly contentious fields as this with compelling policy goals while you maintain a lab coat is something akin to Superman's cape.

I have never referenced the CRU or IPCC in this thread to support my argument. I gave several examples already of scientific organizations that came to the same conclusion regarding a scientific consensus on the subject matter.
You have no consensus, only a loud minority while the quiet majority remain quiet in the interest of remaining employed.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You have no consensus, only a loud minority while the quiet majority remain quiet in the interest of remaining employed.
You believe all meteorologists are either cowards or idiots because that reinforces your own prejudices.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
You believe all meteorologists are either cowards or idiots because that reinforces your own prejudices.
You haven't a clue of meteorologists or me, quit trying to guess. I think people who lap up alarmism are cowards and idiots with nothing better to do with their time. Their pot smoke is worse than the carbon emissions they're slobbering about.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You haven't a clue of meteorologists or me, quit trying to guess.
I repeated back to you what you said. You actually think the majority of meteorologists are too cowardly to speak out against AGW because they might get fired? You are a cynical jerk who maligns even the (imaginary) people who agree with you. And it's just like Ben Stein's stupid movie when he claims biologists are too cowardly to speak out against evolution.
Their pot smoke is worse than the carbon emissions they're slobbering about.
Old man yells at cloud.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You haven't a clue of meteorologists or me, quit trying to guess. I think people who lap up alarmism are cowards and idiots with nothing better to do with their time. Their pot smoke is worse than the carbon emissions they're slobbering about.

I think your emotions are conflating alarmism with scientific results. Most scientific results do not recommend behavior and course of action, they leave that up to others. Maybe your problem is actually with those "others" (i.e. hippy environmental types) and not the scientists themselves?

By wanting to discard the alarmists you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, that baby being numerous global scientific conclusions that point to man contributing to global warming which you are pigeonholing as all (or mostly) being rigged, the studies themselves, and the credibility of the people making them.

This is making your other citations one other subject matter really hard to take seriously given your propensity to cling to what serves your preformed ideology and blow off everything else.

There is a global scientific consensus that GW exists and that man is contributing to it, deal with it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 02:21 PM
 
Your Republican archetype is really a logical train wreck...

- believes in trickle down economics
- believes in states rights of everything, except gay marriage which needs to be a federal issue for some reason
- calls themselves pro life yet they are also pro war and anti universal health care
- thinks that economies are always run better under Republican leadership
- thinks that Obama is a socialist, and a communist, and a Muslim, and also Bush Jr.
- believes that the private sector should be doing pretty much everything minus waging wars and building roads and maybe a couple of other things, and that we'd be better off this way
- believes that Fox News is the altar of truth of righteousness
- crazy about the constitution, our founding documents and founding fathers and all of that stuff, except for the parts that call for a separation of church and state
- accepts literal interpretations of the bible, does not accept the notion that man might be contributing to global warming


Again, this is just your caricature far right Republican archetype, and yes I'm trolling a little (although not labeling anybody in here with this post), but man this is a mess of beliefs when put all together like this... I'm sure that some would choose to spin it a different way though, but whatever.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 07:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I repeated back to you what you said. You actually think the majority of meteorologists are too cowardly to speak out against AGW because they might get fired?
No, that's not what I've said at all. I'm generally referring to an establishment that has been created around catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and the peer pressure inherent in maintaining their commission of assessing the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. The consensus touted is almost invariably referring back to the body of work produced by this intergovernmental panel.

You are a cynical jerk who maligns even the (imaginary) people who agree with you. And it's just like Ben Stein's stupid movie when he claims biologists are too cowardly to speak out against evolution.
Careful, this is where you'd get a sound rebuke from besson3c for being too emotional to be trusted on any issue for which you offer an opinion.

I'm actually not a cynical person at all and you can bet whenever I come off as a jerk, it's only to offer your image to you. It hasn't worked yet of course, but if I were as cynical as you suggest, I'd likely stop trying to remove the alarmist zealotry that pollutes this field of science like no other.

Old man yells at cloud.
Well... I suppose this beats yelling at people for things they haven't done though I understand the need for some to maintain an outlet for all that pent up angst and rage against creationists.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think your emotions are conflating alarmism with scientific results.
On the contrary, I'm an advocate of removing the emotional bias inherent in the sole body of work referenced by almost every other scientific entity, name-dropped as ancillary to the commission of studying man-made global warming and drafting legislation to address the foregone conclusion. Others are merely concurring with this intergovernmental establishment of science.

Most scientific results do not recommend behavior and course of action, they leave that up to others. Maybe your problem is actually with those "others" (i.e. hippy environmental types) and not the scientists themselves?
That's simply because most scientific results do not warrant an immediate human behavior or course of action. The others are the ones conflating their emotions with scientific results.

By wanting to discard the alarmists you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, that baby being numerous global scientific conclusions that point to man contributing to global warming which you are pigeonholing as all (or mostly) being rigged, the studies themselves, and the credibility of the people making them.
By wanting to discard the alarmist rhetoric and activism, I am in fact pursuing a proper perspective regarding the establishment of science commissioned with finding and addressing man-made global warming; the establishment almost invariably referenced in the citations of other scientific bodies in this alleged consensus, mob-rules scientific endeavor.

This is making your other citations one other subject matter really hard to take seriously given your propensity to cling to what serves your preformed ideology and blow off everything else.
This is besson3c right? And yet... you're still posting here. How is that again?

There is a global scientific consensus that GW exists and that man is contributing to it, deal with it.
I am, that's why you're getting so emotional.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Your Republican archetype is really a logical train wreck...
Let's see how the Democratic archetype holds up...

- believes in trickle down economics
So do democrats, only differing on how the money gets from the haves to the haves and have-nots.

- believes in states rights of everything, except gay marriage which needs to be a federal issue for some reason
It's not as if the staunch states rights crowd would've enjoyed your support anyway. In trying to maintain a larger tent for folks like you, they've eventually found themselves looking to a centralized authority for answers which conflates an otherwise sound principle of smaller, more accountable local governance in the Great Experiment that wasn't. This doesn't mean democrats have it right in advocating that states who do what they want should be allowed to; all other matters to be adjudicated at the Federal level.

- calls themselves pro life yet they are also pro war and anti universal health care
Unlike those who would advocate thousands of dollars in fines for killing a certain type of bird while simultaneously supporting the wanton elimination of untold millions of human babies or advocates of universal health care that believe Americans consume too much and lack regard for an over-populated earth.

- thinks that economies are always run better under Republican leadership
This would be silly. Everyone knows the economy usually does best when the Executive and Legislative branches are at odds politically.

- thinks that Obama is a socialist, and a communist, and a Muslim, and also Bush Jr.
In this case they may be as confused as you. You don't get from a free-market economy to communism without employing socialism. If I had to guess, Obama is likely a socialist agnostic who has enjoyed the expedience of religious fellowship with pseudo Christian, social justice advocates. They may feel Bush Jr. simply didn't spend enough. Otherwise, I'm not sure what Democrats are opposed to seeing as Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, and rendition all remain while opening up new wars.

- believes that the private sector should be doing pretty much everything minus waging wars and building roads and maybe a couple of other things, and that we'd be better off this way
This is a constitutional principle and the original, liberal ideal of governance. Liberals just lost their way some time in the 60's.

- believes that Fox News is the altar of truth of righteousness
I can't speak for all Republicans, but I do find Fox News only slightly more substantive and informative than the Daily Show and Colbert Report, though a trifle less entertaining.

- crazy about the constitution, our founding documents and founding fathers and all of that stuff, except for the parts that call for a separation of church and state
No rather, they are compelled to remind you that "separation of church and state" is not verbiage you'll find in the constitution, but has become the rallying call for ignorant leftists who advocate the suppression of church in state.

- accepts literal interpretations of the bible, does not accept the notion that man might be contributing to global warming
I'm always amazed to see such wildly contrasting views lumped together. Does one need to be an atheist to accept the consensus view of the 51 contributing scientists, authors, and policy-makers at the IPCC?

Again, this is just your caricature far right Republican archetype, and yes I'm trolling a little (although not labeling anybody in here with this post), but man this is a mess of beliefs when put all together like this... I'm sure that some would choose to spin it a different way though, but whatever.
Done.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 08:21 AM
 
In a nutshell:

Creationism is nonsense therefore anthropogenic global warming is real.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
*list*
I should have been more clear. By citation, I meant not useless drivel from the Heartland Institute.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, your problem with my perspective is that I acknowledge the inherent human nature in such highly contentious fields as this with compelling policy goals while you maintain a lab coat is something akin to Superman's cape.
For the umpteenth time, I don't give a rat's ass if you agree with the policies the politicians are making. I'm not making a political argument. I'd rather we disagree on the proper steps on solving the problem than you burying your head in the sand and claiming there's no problem in the first place.

You remind me of the king on Erik the Viking. The whole island is sinking, and instead of at least arguing about how to save everyone, you're set on believing that nothing could possibly go wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You have no consensus, only a loud minority while the quiet majority remain quiet in the interest of remaining employed.
I have evidence to support my position, you have a group of conservative wishful thinkers.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I should have been more clear. By citation, I meant not useless drivel from the Heartland Institute.
It's only as useless as the information within it. The number of credible, published scientists who vocally oppose AGW alarmism is beyond question to only those who maintain some mob-rules pursuit of trooth.

For the umpteenth time, I don't give a rat's ass if you agree with the policies the politicians are making. I'm not making a political argument. I'd rather we disagree on the proper steps on solving the problem than you burying your head in the sand and claiming there's no problem in the first place.
The assumption behind our cooperation would require action toward solving what I don't readily accept is a problem we can control among a long list of problems we can.

You remind me of the king on Erik the Viking. The whole island is sinking, and instead of at least arguing about how to save everyone, you're set on believing that nothing could possibly go wrong.
I know, horns are useless without mouthpieces. It's a good thing Erik wasn't focused on trying to prop the island up with their oars.

I have evidence to support my position, you have a group of conservative wishful thinkers.
There is a great deal of evidence to support a long continuum of scientific thought on climate change.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 11:15 PM
 
I still don't understand why you are so particular about using the word "alarmism" ebuddy. Are you trying to infer in a somewhat cryptic way that you are not necessarily against the idea of AGW, but more so people losing their snort about it?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 12:01 AM
 
I think ebuddy's issue is that some people are hell-bent on creating a panic, to go on top of the hysteria we have over more pressing matters. Right now it's "which special interest group can yell the loudest" and the din has become white noise, with the far Left going all emo like a fat kid who dropped his ice cream cone.

If global warming were a better business I'd be more interested, but right now everyone on the enviro teat is screaming "petroleum products bad, mkay?!" and all we have available is shitty, inefficient battery technology to truly fall back on. I'm not going to get my boxers in a bunch until someone offers a real, sustainable solution.

Direct hydrogen combustion, anyone? Hmmm... looks like a good place to invest some money. *hint* *hint*
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 12:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
  • Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting
  • Meteorologist D’Aleo had nothing but praise for the conference. “It was the best climate conference I have attended in my 30 years in the professional societies.
  • Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review:
  • Per James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist:



No, your problem with my perspective is that I acknowledge the inherent human nature in such highly contentious fields as this with compelling policy goals while you maintain a lab coat is something akin to Superman's cape.


You have no consensus, only a loud minority while the quiet majority remain quiet in the interest of remaining employed.
So a few loud minority of meteorologist don't believe in global warming. Meteorologists study the weather in the short term like days or weeks, not global climate change over the long term like thousands of years.

I guess meteorologist know more about climatology than climatologist according to ebuddy. I guess ebuddy would go to a dentist if he needs a brain surgery.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 05:58 AM
 
I'm not sure the weather girls on Fox News are the best source of info regarding GW.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 08:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
So a few loud minority of meteorologist don't believe in global warming. Meteorologists study the weather in the short term like days or weeks, not global climate change over the long term like thousands of years.

I guess meteorologist know more about climatology than climatologist according to ebuddy. I guess ebuddy would go to a dentist if he needs a brain surgery.
The individual I was responding to (not you) had mentioned several sources of academia on climate and the Meteorological Society was one of them. I wouldn't have expected you to follow this discussion any more effectively than you follow the subject matter.

It's just like a simpleton zealot to pit two disciplines of science against one another like it's a UFC cage match. As always, you're in good company.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I still don't understand why you are so particular about using the word "alarmism" ebuddy. Are you trying to infer in a somewhat cryptic way that you are not necessarily against the idea of AGW, but more so people losing their snort about it?
I can move to address the sewage backing-up in my basement or I can move to address bacteria on the sewer grate down the street. IMO the state of the science and its modeling are in stark contrast with the level of urgency and certitude by which its zealots preach doom to the masses.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 08:50 AM
 
Interesting argument but would you be debating the accuracy of the thermometers if someone was testing the temperature of the sea when you just spotted a 100 foot tsunami in the distance?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not sure the weather girls on Fox News are the best source of info regarding GW.

Global warming in my pants!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I can move to address the sewage backing-up in my basement or I can move to address bacteria on the sewer grate down the street. IMO the state of the science and its modeling are in stark contrast with the level of urgency and certitude by which its zealots preach doom to the masses.
I don't think this analogy is accurate. I would say that the alarmists are the people *really* urging you and employing scare tactics to do something about getting a repair done to your sewer before your entire basement is completely filled with sewage.

The thing is, you can ignore the alarmists, but what you shouldn't do is disregard what they are saying completely because you don't like the manner in which they are saying it. It sounds like this is what you are doing. At the very least, why not just listen to the non-alarmists?

I'd say that the non-alarmists wouldn't say that the matter is as harmless as bacteria in the sewer grate down the street, but they aren't going to rattle your cage about the issue, they'll just speak about in a matter-of-fact tone when asked for their opinion.
( Last edited by besson3c; Feb 14, 2012 at 02:49 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 02:44 PM
 
Besides, I still don't get what it is about these alarmists that bothers you so much, ebuddy. Are you bothered by people that say that we are headed towards Sharia law, or that this country will soon be communist/socialist, or that we are days away from our entire society completely self-destructing?

There are alarmists everywhere with all sorts of agendas, left and right.
( Last edited by besson3c; Feb 14, 2012 at 02:50 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Interesting argument but would you be debating the accuracy of the thermometers if someone was testing the temperature of the sea when you just spotted a 100 foot tsunami in the distance?
Pics of "100 foot tsunami"?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Pics of "100 foot tsunami"?
In 1958, Lituya Bay, Alaska had a tsunami 1,720 feet high. It is the tallest recorded tsunami in history. To put that in perspective, that's a wave cresting over 450 feet higher than the Empire State Building.

100 feet is nothing. Maverick's here in California routinely crests 80 feet for the largest waves.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
In 1958, Lituya Bay, Alaska had a tsunami 1,720 feet high. It is the tallest recorded tsunami in history. To put that in perspective, that's a wave cresting over 450 feet higher than the Empire State Building.

100 feet is nothing. Maverick's here in California routinely crests 80 feet for the largest waves.
From what I'm reading on Mavericks, 80' is a stretch. 50-60' is about as big as waves normally get in a good season. You might see a freak rogue that crests 70', but that would be quite rare. Still, 60' waves are impressive. 30 footers scare the crap out of me, but I'm barely competent enough to keep from endangering myself and others.

Besides, Mavericks is the way it is because of the ocean floor topography in that area, tsunamis are much different (faster, more powerful).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't think this analogy is accurate.
Which could mean that it's more accurate than you think.

I would say that the alarmists are the people *really* urging you and employing scare tactics to do something about getting a repair done to your sewer before your entire basement is completely filled with sewage.
I don't need an alarmist to tell me sewage is backing up into my basement, but I can tell you that a plumbing contractor with a tainted reputation will likely not get my business.

The thing is, you can ignore the alarmists, but what you shouldn't do is disregard what they are saying completely because you don't like the manner in which they are saying it. It sounds like this is what you are doing. At the very least, why not just listen to the non-alarmists?
Why do you suppose I'm not listening? All the non-alarmists are doing is publishing information that spans a broad range of thought on the forces of climate change. I don't have to agree with a particular alarmist conclusion to establish for you that I've availed myself of a much drier, more sensible assessment of the evidence.

I'd say that the non-alarmists wouldn't say that the matter is as harmless as bacteria in the sewer grate down the street, but they aren't going to rattle your cage about the issue, they'll just speak about in a matter-of-fact tone when asked for their opinion.
Right and that matter-of-fact tone often includes keeping man's contribution to climate change in proper perspective (bacteria on the sewer grate) which is all an alarmist needs to insist those who acknowledge this perspective are not listening. We just disagree, that doesn't mean you're listening and I'm not.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 03:10 PM
 
Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Originally Posted by Heartland Institute
[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.
Like I said, Heartland Institute is worthless drivel. There isn't some conspiracy except the one manufactured by denialists. I usually don't label people as in denial, but at this point in the game, that's all there is left. You have one side with mountains of data, models, research, and evidence to support their position, then you have the other side that doesn't.

So their solution is to stop teachers from actually teaching science. Keep the kids stupid so you can indoctrinate them into your political and religious fervor.

Also, Fred Singer and several other scientists that eBuddy loves to quote are, apparently, being paid $60,000 or more per year to "regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message." That isn't science, that's propaganda. The funny thing was that a lot of people assumed that most of the dissenting scientist were probably being paid under the table to come out and publicly say something. Now we know they're paid to do it.

I don't wanna prove my position, research is hard!
( Last edited by olePigeon; Feb 15, 2012 at 03:21 PM. )
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2012, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

So their solution is to stop teachers from actually teaching science. Keep the kids stupid so you can indoctrinate them into your political and religious fervor.
Nope, no political fervor at discover magazine.



Also, Fred Singer and several other scientists that eBuddy loves to quote...
I didn't quote Fred Singer or "several other scientists" that are being paid $60,000 or more per year to publicly counter alarmist AGW.

You've proved absolutely nothing other than how politically-driven this nonsense is and how readily you'll lap it up as long as the source is in lock-step with your partisan sensitivities. Try again.
ebuddy
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2012, 09:21 AM
 
Because they have an Obama ad? This site has all kinds of ads, doesn't mean we're for them. It means they pay, and it gets served up randomly.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2012, 01:45 PM
 
You wouldn't see a 100 foot tsunami "in the distance" you'd see it fairly close to shore. I know this because I have a PhD in Discovery Channel.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2012, 04:01 PM
 
Distance is relative.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2012, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Nope, no political fervor at discover magazine.


ebuddy is a secret Obama fan.

Adchoices knows buddy has been visiting Pres. Obama related websites.

"This ad has been matched to your interests. It was selected for you based on your browsing activity. This Advertiser used Invite Media's ad serving and targeting platform to determine that you might be interested in an ad like this."
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2012, 10:36 PM
 
It's interesting that the ad is using Michelle Obama to sell the campaign though. She seems that many find her affable.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2012, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
  • Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.” But D’Aleo noted that he believes there is “very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.”
  • Meteorologist D’Aleo had nothing but praise for the conference. “It was the best climate conference I have attended in my 30 years in the professional societies. The two-day meeting featured over 100 excellent presentations made by scientists from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States,” D’Aleo wrote on his website ICECAP on March 4. [Note: The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, only 52 scientists participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process. Many current and former UN scientists disagree with the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and many of them attended the skeptical climate conference in New York. In addition, the so-called “consensus” statements by scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union are only voted on by two dozen or so governing board members with no direct vote cast by rank-and-file scientists]
  • Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review: “It is my belief that the strident and frequent claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data. […] Too many people are too confident about too many things. That was the simple message of the Heartland conference, and one that I hope sinks in.”
  • Per James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."



No, your problem with my perspective is that I acknowledge the inherent human nature in such highly contentious fields as this with compelling policy goals while you maintain a lab coat is something akin to Superman's cape.


You have no consensus, only a loud minority while the quiet majority remain quiet in the interest of remaining employed.
Are these not just opinions that opinions are being suppressed? Is there any actual *evidence*?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2012, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think people who lap up alarmism are cowards and idiots with nothing better to do with their time. Their pot smoke is worse than the carbon emissions they're slobbering about.
Is it just leftist alarmism that you're opposed to, or do you believe that the people who lapped up the alarmism around Iraq and WMD were also cowards and idiots?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2012, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Is it just leftist alarmism that you're opposed to, or do you believe that the people who lapped up the alarmism around Iraq and WMD were also cowards and idiots?
Dunno `bout ebuddy, but I'll say yes.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2012, 08:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Is it just leftist alarmism that you're opposed to, or do you believe that the people who lapped up the alarmism around Iraq and WMD were also cowards and idiots?
There was a great deal of fear-mongering around WMDs, but that wasn't the sole reason for invading and it wasn't the sole reason I supported action there. Both sides of this issue were made to be cowards and idiots, from those who lapped up alarmism of botulinum to those who were convinced Saddam's elite guard would bathe in US blood.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2012, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Are these not just opinions that opinions are being suppressed? Is there any actual *evidence*?
Several IPCC contributors have expressed frustration with the process and published ARs having suppressed their critical review, some tapped for peer review then ignored, outright refusal to comply with FOI requests, correspondence between zealots at CRU to journals threatening backlash for publishing the work of skeptics, etc...

Yes.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2012, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There was a great deal of fear-mongering around WMDs, but that wasn't the sole reason for invading and it wasn't the sole reason I supported action there. Both sides of this issue were made to be cowards and idiots, from those who lapped up alarmism of botulinum to those who were convinced Saddam's elite guard would bathe in US blood.
Exactly. And, just as there is a lot of fear mongering around the climate, not everyone shares the extreme points of view of the alarmists.

For you, there were still valid reasons to invade Iraq, despite the alarmism of a few.
For others, there are still valid reasons to take actions with respect to the climate, despite the alarmism of a few.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2012, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Several IPCC contributors have expressed frustration with the process and published ARs having suppressed their critical review, some tapped for peer review then ignored, outright refusal to comply with FOI requests, correspondence between zealots at CRU to journals threatening backlash for publishing the work of skeptics, etc...

Yes.
Cool. Do you have any links for that?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2012, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Several IPCC contributors have expressed frustration with the process and published ARs having suppressed their critical review, some tapped for peer review then ignored, outright refusal to comply with FOI requests, correspondence between zealots at CRU to journals threatening backlash for publishing the work of skeptics, etc...

Yes.
I take it back. It looks like scientists *are* being suppressed.
BBC News - Canadian government is muzzling its scientists
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2012, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I take it back. It looks like scientists *are* being suppressed.
BBC News - Canadian government is muzzling its scientists
Exactly. This is certainly nothing new, particularly concerning very localized phenomena. The government may make of the data whatever is most expedient regardless of the science. As if it's not bad enough that there would be tribalism within the community producing the data, a government body is responsible for drafting the most entrusted and oft-cited summary of the scientific data

Support for call for review of IPCC
“Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.” ~ Dr. Vincent Gray
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 01:15 AM
 
Except, in the case of my example, the scientists being suppressed are those who feel there *is* evidence of human-influenced climate change.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 03:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I take it back. It looks like scientists *are* being suppressed.
BBC News - Canadian government is muzzling its scientists
Nothing new.

The Bush administration has been known for suppressing scientific data including data supporting global warming.

Not really surprise that the Canadian prime minister is suppressing scientists from making their data supporting global warming known to the public.

That's the danger of having an anti-science and/or anti-global warming leader.

http://www.amazon.com/Undermining-Sc.../dp/0520247027
Reports - Suppression Of Science | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS
Bush's Misuse of Science : Distorting & Suppressing Climate Change Research
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Except, in the case of my example, the scientists being suppressed are those who feel there *is* evidence of human-influenced climate change.
Not necessarily. The complaint is over a government protocol for interviewing government scientists. The only specific example of suppression given was that of a study on local salmon populations in decline potentially due to a virus, but the Dept for Oceans and Fisheries maintains that it has publicly issued 286 science advisory reports documenting their research on Canada's fisheries and that their scientists respond to approximately 380 science-based media calls every year. Maybe that's all they can handle, who knows? What I do know is that the article makes mention of Canada withdrawing from Kyoto as if participating in a "green" fund for underdeveloped countries of $100 billion a year would have an appreciable impact on climate. Yes, it's political... all the way around.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 08:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
For others, there are still valid reasons to take actions with respect to the climate, despite the alarmism of a few.
I've already given them and have taken significant measures to ensure my home is more efficient. No need for alarmism over pragmatism or to assume that I'm not taking action because I don't advocate a massive, lop-sided, and costly official policy to address the problem as delivered by a few, very well-endowed alarmists.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 09:54 AM
 
Maybe this will help you;

Canada's government muzzles scientists, stonewalls press queries about health, environment and climate - Boing Boing
"A series of speakers at an AAAS meeting told the international science community that climate, environmental and health research that calls government policy into question is routinely suppressed. Prof Andrew Weaver of U Victoria said, "The only information [the press] are given is that which the government wants, which will then allow a supporting of a particular agenda.""
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Maybe this will help you;

Canada's government muzzles scientists, stonewalls press queries about health, environment and climate - Boing Boing
"A series of speakers at an AAAS meeting told the international science community that climate, environmental and health research that calls government policy into question is routinely suppressed. Prof Andrew Weaver of U Victoria said, "The only information [the press] are given is that which the government wants, which will then allow a supporting of a particular agenda.""
Help me with what exactly? What specific policy, other than the interview policy, is being called into question here? One of their government policies is to retain these government scientists, why wouldn't they maintain the right to scrutinize what their own bureaucracy is producing? A quick perusal of Canadian emissions policies for example shows nothing, but increasing regulation around the industries producing the green-house gases that allegedly contribute to global warming. The problem is it's never enough as evidenced by the fact that Canada does not feel it is in the planet's best interest to pony up billions of dollars for the energy policies of under-developed countries.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2012, 11:09 AM
 
I'm sorry. Given the weak evidence you presented to support the idea that scientists who don't support global warming theories are being suppressed, I didn't realize that there would be a higher bar of evidence for the idea that scientists who *do* support global warming theories are *also* being suppressed.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:50 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2