Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

It's getting hot in here....so lets...read this article?Follow

#52 Sep 24 2012 at 6:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,814 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
RavennofTitan wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Even if you don't believe it's happening, why take the chance?


It cuts into profits. Since the GOP is the loudest at saying it not our fault this is all that needs to be said.
Not everything cuts into profits. A lot of green initiatives have excellent ROI's.
Yeah, lots are efficiency based. Greater efficiency usually relates to less overhead.

Many green initiatives can improve public health as well - so presumably there'd be some indirect cost savings in the form of reduced reactive health care.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#53 Sep 24 2012 at 7:39 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

A lot of green initiatives have excellent ROI's.


Myth. Maybe .01% have "excellent ROI". Most are only tacitly feasible because of PR benefits. You know, the PR that means you hear all about the ones with excellent ROI then are duped into believing that's a fairly common thing.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#54 Sep 24 2012 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
The planet is already suffering
The planet'll be fine. It's a self-correcting system. We might not be around to see it, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Sep 24 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

A lot of green initiatives have excellent ROI's.


Myth. Maybe .01% have "excellent ROI". Most are only tacitly feasible because of PR benefits. You know, the PR that means you hear all about the ones with excellent ROI then are duped into believing that's a fairly common thing.
I can think of 10 off the top of my head that we utilize in most of our hotels. The bulk of them are based around energy efficiency. Now, 10 may not be a lot in the grand scheme, but in the reality of what someone or some business may be willing to do, 10 is a good chunk and has a rather significant effect.


Edited, Sep 24th 2012 11:19am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#56 Sep 24 2012 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,814 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
The planet is already suffering
The planet'll be fine. It's a self-correcting system. We might not be around to see it, though.

Yeah, I should have been more specific. Systems have changed - first the chemistry, next the ecosystems.

Old mother earth could probably care less if our coastal cities can't seem to keep their heads above water, or if the wood boring bark beetle population explodes. It's just a little hot flash - it'll pass.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#57 Sep 24 2012 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There will come soft rains
And the smell of the ground
Circling swallows
With their shimmering sound...


Ms. Teasdale (and Mr. Bradbury) may have underestimated the number of singing frogs and wild plum trees we'll be taking down with us.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Sep 24 2012 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
TLDR CANADIAN PROPAGANDA!


Admit it you're just sick of all the ice, and tired of riding out the winter in Arizona. The northern polar region is warming faster than anywhere in the world and all you see is dollar signs. Who cares about the polar bears? They're nothing but pests anyway.

For shame. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#59 Sep 24 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,814 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
TLDR CANADIAN PROPAGANDA!
Who cares about the polar bears? They're nothing but pests anyway.

For shame. Smiley: disappointed

I think they'll successfully breed with the kodiak, creating a new and even more ferocious ursidae monster that will be able to swim and climb trees. It will be incredibly cute, mottled all white and brown, and we'll call it a Polak Bear.

(or should we call it a kodar bear?)
____________________________
LOOK here.
#60 Sep 24 2012 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Polak Bear.

Racist Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Sep 24 2012 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Has anyone considered that maybe this is exactly what the planet wants? I mean, we've been way bigger assh*les than those dinosaur dudes, and they were gone like BAM.

Edited, Sep 24th 2012 12:45pm by Guenny
#62 Sep 24 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,001 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Even if you don't believe it's happening, why take the chance?

Even if you don't believe that God will condemn you to an eternity of torment and hellfire, why take the chance by not going to church once a week?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#63gbaji, Posted: Sep 24 2012 at 4:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Correct. Meaningless, but correct. No one's denying "the effect mankind has has in altering the natural cycle". That's a pretty circular argument. What we're denying is the size of the actual effect itself and its relation to current global temperatures trends. Hell. We're not even in agreement over what those trends are either.
#64 Sep 24 2012 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

A lot of green initiatives have excellent ROI's.


Myth. Maybe .01% have "excellent ROI". Most are only tacitly feasible because of PR benefits. You know, the PR that means you hear all about the ones with excellent ROI then are duped into believing that's a fairly common thing.
I can think of 10 off the top of my head that we utilize in most of our hotels. The bulk of them are based around energy efficiency. Now, 10 may not be a lot in the grand scheme, but in the reality of what someone or some business may be willing to do, 10 is a good chunk and has a rather significant effect.


The problem is, I suspect, how one looks at "green initiatives". Assuming we're talking about the set of things which our government has to get involved in to force people to adopt, the idea that there's a positive ROI on them is pretty much absurd. If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.

It's pretty absurd to point to those things and use them as a justification for all the stuff the government *is* having to force people/businesses to do. Because those things are almost certainly *not* going to be better ROI than what they're doing now. It's nearly axiomatic to the issue itself that this is the case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Sep 24 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.
Logically, you would think that's the case, but oddly enough, it's not as common as you'd like to beleive.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#66 Sep 24 2012 at 5:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.
Logically, you would think that's the case, but oddly enough, it's not as common as you'd like to beleive.


Sure. But then it doesn't take more than a nudge or a bit of information to get people to adopt those kinds of changes. And those aren't usually the sorts of things that anyone fights over politically either. It's the subsidies for a new type of light bulbs (which only coincidentally give a virtual monopoly to a big donor of the current administration), or regulation designed purely to increase the cost and decrease the availability of one form of energy in order to make an alternative look more attractive, or a whole list of other things which people actually oppose.

I don't know anyone opposing the installation of improved heat exchangers in office or hotel buildings though, so I think pointing out the ROI of such things when speaking broadly of "green initiatives" is misleading at best.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Sep 24 2012 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,618 posts
Guenny wrote:
Has anyone considered that maybe this is exactly what the planet wants? I mean, we've been way bigger assh*les than those dinosaur dudes, and they were gone like BAM.

"Why are we here?
"Plastic, asshole."
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#68 Sep 25 2012 at 1:04 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Human kind the last 150 years has produced levels of greenhouse gas that far exceed any natural variation observable in the historical record. This is proven.


Here's where you go off the rails though. This is not true, much less "proven" if we consider all greenhouse gases. It's only true if we consider just one: Carbon Dioxide. And CO2 is one of the weakest of the greenhouse gasses. Thus, the likely effect of even a significant variation of naturally produced CO2 by humans when compared to the natural variations of other greenhouse gasses is pretty darn small.

It's like arguing that we've significantly affected the total mass of the soup we're making because we increased the size of a "dash" of salt by 30%.


You're wrong, but then I would never expect you to be able to discern the difference between fact and fiction.

Quote:
Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.


That you expect anyone here (or anywhere else, for that matter) to believe your baseless opinion on the matter over a worldwide body of volunteer scientists pouring over thousands of data points and all arriving at similar conclusions is typical, however hilarious and unlikely.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 2:06am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#69 Sep 25 2012 at 5:41 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,814 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.
Logically, you would think that's the case, but oddly enough, it's not as common as you'd like to beleive.


Sure. But then it doesn't take more than a nudge or a bit of information to get people to adopt those kinds of changes. And those aren't usually the sorts of things that anyone fights over politically either. It's the subsidies for a new type of light bulbs (which only coincidentally give a virtual monopoly to a big donor of the current administration), or regulation designed purely to increase the cost and decrease the availability of one form of energy in order to make an alternative look more attractive, or a whole list of other things which people actually oppose.

I don't know anyone opposing the installation of improved heat exchangers in office or hotel buildings though, so I think pointing out the ROI of such things when speaking broadly of "green initiatives" is misleading at best.
Oftentimes it's the initial investment monies that are either simply not there or too big of a chunk of change. If it's a 30 ROI some CEO looking at retirement in ten years might need more than nudging to make the change. It might take a low interest loan or even seed grant money, perhaps a tax incentive.....

When and if government stops subsidizing big oil, you can righteously come bitch about "regulation designed purely to increase the cost and decrease the availability of one form of energy in order to make an alternative look more attractive".
____________________________
LOOK here.
#70 Sep 25 2012 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.

Except when the cost is individual and the outcome is shared.
#71 Sep 25 2012 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
Debalic wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Has anyone considered that maybe this is exactly what the planet wants? I mean, we've been way bigger assh*les than those dinosaur dudes, and they were gone like BAM.
"Why are we here?
"Plastic, asshole."
I wanted to quote the whole thing, but couldn't find it in time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Sep 25 2012 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Human kind the last 150 years has produced levels of greenhouse gas that far exceed any natural variation observable in the historical record. This is proven.


Here's where you go off the rails though. This is not true, much less "proven" if we consider all greenhouse gases. It's only true if we consider just one: Carbon Dioxide. And CO2 is one of the weakest of the greenhouse gasses. Thus, the likely effect of even a significant variation of naturally produced CO2 by humans when compared to the natural variations of other greenhouse gasses is pretty darn small.

It's like arguing that we've significantly affected the total mass of the soup we're making because we increased the size of a "dash" of salt by 30%.


Speaking of 30% I thought I just read somewhere that 5%-30% of the arctic warming was due to natural cycles.

I wish it wasn't so hard to get the actual science links on these things...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#73 Sep 25 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,715 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Speaking of 30% I thought I just read somewhere that 5%-30% of the arctic warming was due to natural cycles.

I wish it wasn't so hard to get the actual science links on these things...


They're not that hard to find, but most of them are locked up behind a "pay gate" such that you have to purchase access to the original study. This one's actually out in the open though.

Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent

However, the lack of availability of most studies to the general public leads imbeciles like Gbaji to assume the studies are fictional or biased because he neither has access to nor the capability to understand them.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 10:37am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#74 Sep 25 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Speaking of 30% I thought I just read somewhere that 5%-30% of the arctic warming was due to natural cycles.

I wish it wasn't so hard to get the actual science links on these things...


They're not that hard to find, but most of them are locked up behind a "pay gate" such that you have to purchase access to the original study. This one's actually out in the open though.

Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent

However, the lack of availability of most studies to the general public leads imbeciles like Gbaji to assume the studies are fictional or biased because he neither has access to nor the capability to understand them.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 10:37am by BrownDuck


Thanks.

I was getting a message that the file had already been download or viewed from my IP address, and it sent me to the "terms and conditions" page. Smiley: rolleyes

Quote:
Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the
loss of importance of solar influence on temperature.


Which I think is a very good point. It's not that these other things (solar cycles, leaving an ice age, ect) have an effect, it's just that with modern scientific instruments we have the ability to tease out that effect.


Edited, Sep 25th 2012 8:48am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#75 Sep 25 2012 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I posted about a scientific paper a few years ago that attributed at least 50% of the warming to anthropogenic sources. It was easier then because I still had an academic account that allowed access to the majority of published studies.

These days, I don't even bother. People like Gbaji have been ignoring the actual science for years so there's no point in trying to hammer it in.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 10:52am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Sep 25 2012 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
This will kill us before Global Warming.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/decline-of-honey-bees-now-a-global-phenomenon-says-united-nations-2237541.html

Where are the billion dollar solutions for an issue we are actually experiencing. That actually has drastic ramifications in the immediate future, the world over.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#77 Sep 25 2012 at 9:59 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
This will kill us before Global Warming.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/decline-of-honey-bees-now-a-global-phenomenon-says-united-nations-2237541.html

Where are the billion dollar solutions for an issue we are actually experiencing. That actually has drastic ramifications in the immediate future, the world over.


I'm all for solutions, as long as they don't involve another CGI flick starring Jerry Seinfeld.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 11:01am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#78 Sep 25 2012 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
It did produce this image.
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Sep 25 2012 at 10:16 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
To stay on topic.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286

Uh-Oh someone made up some numbers.

Quote:
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.


Add a couple degrees here and there, No one will ever know!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#80 Sep 25 2012 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Usual gallery of ACC deniers put together paper, hype it up "pre-publication" and say it's going to be submitted! People who want it to be true seize on this one paper as evidence that all other papers must be false! News at eleven!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Sep 25 2012 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
To stay on topic.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286

Uh-Oh someone made up some numbers.

Quote:
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.


Add a couple degrees here and there, No one will ever know!


So I suppose the question would be (even assuming a linear increase in temp.) if the US is 1.5C warmer at the turn of the next century, what does that mean? On one hand, it's not as terrible of a consequence and some of the alarmists would lead you to believe. On the other hand that's still an awful lot of extra energy being added into the system.

Another point being that whether or not it's due to human activity is probably of minimal consequence. Even if you assume it is, it's not like it's really changing people's behaviors a whole lot. The world is getting warmer, estimates range from this study into 4C range or so over the next 100 years or so. Now, what does that mean?

We know the polar region is warming faster. How does that change weather patterns?
How will the extra energy affect storm formation? Cloud formation?
How close should we build to the shoreline? (was that the N. Carolina debate? whatever happened there?)

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 9:43am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#82 Sep 25 2012 at 10:31 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Usual gallery of ACC deniers put together paper, hype it up "pre-publication" and say it's going to be submitted! People who want it to be true seize on this one paper as evidence that all other papers must be false! News at eleven!


Wow you sound a bit like Gbaji. It doesn't agree with me so it must be false!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#83 Sep 25 2012 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As opposed to "Hey, here's a blog that wrote a paper I think supports me"?

Smiley: laugh

Funny how, a couple entries later after hyping how they'll be submitting their ground-breaking study, they're talking about how "traditional" peer review doesn't really count. Now THAT'S some Gbaji-level spin for ya.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Sep 25 2012 at 10:36 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.


Add a couple degrees here and there, No one will ever know!


0.309c != a couple of degrees.

It's great that we're learning from past mistakes and that future observations will be more accurate. Nothing in the article completely invalidates the trend, though. The paper simply suggests that evaluations of sites failed to take into account surface area when adjusting for heat sinks and such. The numbers weren't made up entirely out of thin air...

Quote:
Previous papers all used a distance only rating system from Leroy 1999, to gauge the impact of heat sinks and sources near thermometers. Leroy 2010 shows that method to be effective for siting new stations, such as was done by NCDC adopting Leroy 1999 methods with their Climate Reference Network (CRN) in 2002 but ineffective at retroactive siting evaluation.

Leroy 2010 adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.


In other words, the adjusted readings can be made more accurate by adding an additional metric. Yay, I guess?


Also, as Joph noted, this is little more than a blog article written by the author of a pre-release paper that has yet to be accepted and reviewed by a journal. It's self-promotion at best.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 11:37am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#85 Sep 25 2012 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
Also, as Joph noted, this is little more than a blog article written by the author of a pre-release paper that has yet to be accepted and reviewed by a journal. It's self-promotion at best.

Yes, but if you don't spend the time and keystrokes refuting it to RDM's satisfaction, it means you were really unable to stand up to its awesome might as it shattered your previous notions about global warming.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Sep 25 2012 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
To stay on topic.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286

Uh-Oh someone made up some numbers.

Quote:
The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.


Add a couple degrees here and there, No one will ever know!


So I suppose the question would be, if the US is 1.5C warmer at the turn of the next century, what does that mean? On one hand, it's not as terrible of a consequence and some of the alarmists would lead you to believe. On the other hand that's still an awful lot of extra energy being added into the system.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 9:31am by someproteinguy


I agree completely. There is no doubt the world is getting hotter, it is impossible to deny that. I just don't buy into the whole "we caused it" crap that Gore invented to sell a movie. There is no concrete evidence that we are the leading cause in the increase in temperature. I believe it is likely Natural. Heck CO2 has almost no effect on the temperature anyway, it makes up only .038% of total volume in our atmosphere.

Im no scientist but Id wager that the world is just providing for us. More water from the ice caps, more land from the melting of the ice caps. Its not the Earths fault we refuse to invest in desalination processes to turn this new sea water into new fresh water.


____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#87 Sep 25 2012 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Heck CO2 has almost no effect on the temperature anyway, it makes up only .038% of total volume in our atmosphere.

Ricin only made up .038% of his orange juice! There's no way it could have contributed to his death!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Sep 25 2012 at 10:47 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As opposed to "Hey, here's a blog that wrote a paper I think supports me"?

Smiley: laugh

Funny how, a couple entries later after hyping how they'll be submitting their ground-breaking study, they're talking about how "traditional" peer review doesn't really count. Now THAT'S some Gbaji-level spin for ya.


Support me? I don't care either way tbh. I have already made up my mind and so have you. I just found it funny that the NOAA doubled up on their numbers so they could make it seem even more scary!

Also how can that be Gbaji level spin? We all know the guy doesn't offer links to anything. Maybe Varus level spin, but then again I didn't call you a filthy liberal even once.


I guess ill add, pot kettle, kettle pot.

Nothing you have linked is fact, it is opinion, the only fact you have produced is the temperature is rising. Yet all the other stuff contained within your links is pure hypothetical opinion. There is no proof that people have caused this at all. That is 100% opinion based.


Edited, Sep 25th 2012 12:54pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#89 Sep 25 2012 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
Also how can that be Gbaji level spin? We all know the guy doesn't offer links to anything.

If I had a nickle for every time Gbaji said "Now, this is just a blog but...", I could probably buy myself a frosty soda.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Sep 25 2012 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,715 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
There is no doubt the world is getting hotter, it is impossible to deny that. I just don't buy into the whole "we caused it" crap that Gore invented to sell a movie. There is no concrete evidence that we are the leading cause in the increase in temperature. I believe it is likely Natural. Heck CO2 has almost no effect on the temperature anyway, it makes up only .038% of total volume in our atmosphere.


The evidence is everywhere. You just refuse to believe it because you're unable to comprehend it.

Quote:
Im no scientist


I don't think anyone could ever possibly mistake you for one. No need for such redundant declarations.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#91 Sep 25 2012 at 11:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
rdmcandie wrote:

I agree completely. There is no doubt the world is getting hotter, it is impossible to deny that.


Precisely, and if the dam is leaking who cares who put the hole in it? Warn the people downstream first, assign blame later.

rdmcandie wrote:
I just don't buy into the whole "we caused it" crap that Gore invented to sell a movie.


Gore falls more into the alarmist camp, IMO.

Edited, Sep 25th 2012 10:07am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#92 Sep 25 2012 at 11:09 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
There is no doubt the world is getting hotter, it is impossible to deny that. I just don't buy into the whole "we caused it" crap that Gore invented to sell a movie. There is no concrete evidence that we are the leading cause in the increase in temperature. I believe it is likely Natural. Heck CO2 has almost no effect on the temperature anyway, it makes up only .038% of total volume in our atmosphere.


The evidence is everywhere. You just refuse to believe it because you're unable to comprehend it.



What evidence? I see a lot of good scientists working on hypothetical causation, and solutions, but to call it evidence is a bit of a stretch at this point. There is no proof that Humans have caused the temperature to rise. Either not yet, or never will be. That is why scientist should be working on this. Which is why I maintain an open opinion on the subject, however there is no evidence that can make me toss my cap into the Global Warmist camp at this point. Just the same as I can not toss my cap into the loonies who dismiss the warming entirely.

The planet is heating up. But we don't know why.



____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#93 Sep 25 2012 at 11:10 AM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Quote:
Im no scientist
I don't think anyone could ever possibly mistake you for one. No need for such redundant declarations.
I don't know. In some circles that makes him even more of an expert on the subject matter.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 Sep 25 2012 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
So rmdcandie, which of these two points do you take issue with?

1. That there is a scientific consensus on the contributions of humans towards climate change? You don't even need a database subscription to show this. The international scientific community has affirmed as such.

2. That you are better qualified to have an opinion on the subject that the majority of the international scientific community? If this is where you take issue, then I can't help you, and no one can help you. If you truly believe you are in greater capacity to have an opinion on this than the entirety of experts in thee field, then I hope gbaji brings you a nice housewarming present because you've clearly moved into the same reality he's in.
#95 Sep 25 2012 at 3:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you could save money doing X, Y, or Z, and you are in a business which desires to make money, then you will do X, Y, and Z whether the government tells you to or not.

Except when the cost is individual and the outcome is shared.


Huh? ROI doesn't normally refer to returns gained by someone (or group of someone's) other than they who initially invested. So that's a particularly bizarre response.

As to the idea of the CEO leaving in 10 years not being willing to invest in something that will take 30 years to generate a return, that's also silly if you understand anything at all about how businesses operate (and how CEO compensation works).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Sep 25 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Allegory wrote:
So rmdcandie, which of these two points do you take issue with?

1. That there is a scientific consensus on the contributions of humans towards climate change? You don't even need a database subscription to show this. The international scientific community has affirmed as such.


The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Also "consensus" is not how science is done.

Quote:
2. That you are better qualified to have an opinion on the subject that the majority of the international scientific community?


See my second point above. The problem is that the political value of global warming is so great that any scientist who isn't on board with it gets labeled as a fringe quack and finds he can't gain employment. This then allows folks like you to dismiss their opinions as not in the mainstream and keeps the rest in line.


Is this how science is supposed to work? No. I don't need to know a damn thing about climate science specifically to look at the methodology used by the IPCC and determine that it's politically driven and anti-scientific. The scary thing is how many people who would otherwise be skeptical of exactly this sort of thing if it were a religious ideology pushing it fall right in line when it's an environmental ideology instead.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Sep 25 2012 at 3:59 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Also "consensus" is not how science is done.
Well, since I don't need any peer review I hereby state that gbaji is the source of all herpes in the world.

Hey; SCIENCE is fun!!
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#98 Sep 25 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't need to know a damn thing about climate science specifically...

Makes sense. After all, you don't know anything about polling but tell us all how McCain (now Romney) will obviously win. Or know anything about embryonic stem cell research but told us all how one of the foremost researchers was obviously wrong. Or know anything about sex ed but can tell us all about how any studies regarding it are flawed or...

Isn't it funny how you always know so much better than the so-called "Experts" when it meets your political agenda?

But, yeah... it's all politics making the experts say those things and not at all politics making you say your part Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Sep 25 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,369 posts
gbaji wrote:
Also "consensus" is not how science is done.


Not on a study by study basis, but it's fairly common in general. You get a few of the bigwigs in the field together, they write a review article summarizing some knowledge, it gets cited a bajillion times, then it's pretty much considered fact.

Do people question things that are considered 'fact' afterwards?

Of course, happens all the time. There are always exceptions and things that were overlooked, times move on and theories change based on new data. The only difference between other fields and climate science is every lawn chair scientist and politician feels they have a stake in the process here. Every bump, question, contradiction and exception is over-analyzed ad nauseum.

Frankly, I don't see how they ever get anything done with all that extra attention.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#100 Sep 25 2012 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
Allegory wrote:
So rmdcandie, which of these two points do you take issue with?

1. That there is a scientific consensus on the contributions of humans towards climate change? You don't even need a database subscription to show this. The international scientific community has affirmed as such.


The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Also "consensus" is not how science is done.

Quote:
2. That you are better qualified to have an opinion on the subject that the majority of the international scientific community?


See my second point above. The problem is that the political value of global warming is so great that any scientist who isn't on board with it gets labeled as a fringe quack and finds he can't gain employment. This then allows folks like you to dismiss their opinions as not in the mainstream and keeps the rest in line.


Is this how science is supposed to work? No. I don't need to know a damn thing about climate science specifically to look at the methodology used by the IPCC and determine that it's politically driven and anti-scientific. The scary thing is how many people who would otherwise be skeptical of exactly this sort of thing if it were a religious ideology pushing it fall right in line when it's an environmental ideology instead.


You're an idiot. I mean this from the most sincere, bottom, darkest depths of my beating heart. You're 100% grade A proof that Humanity is the first species on earth to circumvent the evolution process entirely.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#101 Sep 25 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts

Also "consensus" is not how science is done.


I was thinking today, one of us has had original research published in peer reviewed journals and one of us was an ignorant fucking clown who amazes all who know him by managing to acquire and retain the skills required to drive a motor vehicle.

Which one are you, again, Bozo?



Edited, Sep 25th 2012 6:33pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CDT
Debalic, Kakar, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (36)