Businesses that profit from failure to halt CO2 emissions deny science of climate change
Harry Hope
http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_cc96164c-f749-11de-b7f9-001cc4c03286.html
Saturday, January 2, 2010
By FRANKE WILMER
The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
ago.
Everyone with a high school education should know that skepticism �
research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
researched hypotheses � is built into the process of scientific
inquiry.
The best science aims to disprove or �falsify� a strong hypothesis �
almost none of our scientific knowledge has a 100 percent probability
of being true.
Statistically, findings with probabilities above 95 percent are
treated as knowledge that should be acted on as true.
Scientific knowledge where probabilities affect human health and
safety is routinely used in engineering and medicine.
Building safe bridges means knowing the probability that based on
engineering science, a structure will safely hold a certain amount of
weight.
Medical patients are told their chances of surviving cancer with
different treatment alternatives, none with 100 percent certainty of
success.
Statistical probability
The International Panel on Climate Change concluded, with a
statistical probability of 99 percent, that most of the earth�s land
base will continue experiencing more warmer and fewer colder days.
With statistical confidence of 90 percent the IPCC predicted
increasing frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation.
Bozeman temperatures now average 7 degrees higher than in 1950, 26
glaciers remain of 150 that were in Glacier National Park in 1850, and
pine beetles killed 17 million more trees on 2 million to 3 million
acres.
Over 90 percent of the world�s scientists agree that we are
experiencing effects of human-induced climate change, including the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, International
Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences,
American Geophysical Union, World Meteorological Organization,
American Academy of Pediatrics, World Federation of Public Health
Associations, American Institute of Physics, and 69 other national and
international science organizations. Only six scientific organizations
take a noncommittal position.
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, once the lone
dissenting scientific organization, rescinded its dissent in 2007 to
become the sixth organization adopting a noncommittal position.
Deniers claim a scientific conspiracy but fail to identify any motive
for climate researchers to mislead the public.
It�s easy, on the other hand, to see a motive for denial � short-term
profit from continuing to produce the greenhouse gases that cause
global warming.
Most Montanans wouldn�t mind a slightly warmer climate, but that�s not
what the science is about.
It�s about the extinction of species that, according to Nobel Laureate
Dr. Eric Chivian of the Harvard Medical School, may provide medically
valuable knowledge, like treatments for peptic ulcer disease affecting
25 million Americans, end stage renal disease that kills 80,000
Americans a year, osteoporosis that kills 70,000 Americans a year,
Type 2 diabetes killing a quarter of a million people each year, and
arrhythmias.
90% of scientists agree
It�s about the economic and geo-strategic impact of regional climate
change on agriculture and energy.
It�s about migrations of species like bark beetles and their impact on
forestry and wildfires.
In impoverished countries it�s about more death and suffering from
increases in malaria and water and air-borne diseases.
It�s about increased radiation and corresponding increases in skin
cancer and melanoma, particularly in higher altitudes.
Knowing that 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 80 percent in
women are caused by smoking, most of us don�t smoke and encourage our
loved ones to quit.
When 90 percent of scientists agree that the effects of climate change
put us all at risk, and that there is a high probability that failure
to change our behavior by 2015 will make those effects difficult or
impossible to reverse, we should take that just as seriously as other
scientific facts regarding risks to our health and lives that we
routinely accept and, accordingly, change our behavior.
______________________________________________________
Harry
tg
> Harry Hope wrote:
>
> >http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
>
> And businesses that will profit from attempting to halt CO2 emissions are
> promoting the science of climate change.. (Including individuals like Al Gore).
>
> Who would have thought?
Of course. But since there's no potential downside to improving the
insulation in your house, or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
such actions, why is that equivalent?
-tg
TUKA
> On Jan 2, 8:26�am, "S. Caro" <sc...@mux-net-88.com> wrote:
>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>
>> >http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
>>
>> And businesses that will profit from attempting to halt CO2 emissions are
>> promoting the science of climate change.. �(Including individuals like Al Gore).
>>
>> Who would have thought?
>
> Of course. But since there's no potential downside to improving the
> insulation in your house,
Sure there is. Overinvestment can be a problem.
I would love to have geothermal heating and cooling. I have the money
to invest in it. But with the rocky soil in my area, the cost of drilling
is large and payback is in the 17 year range. Too long.
> or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
> such actions, why is that equivalent?
Example -- home windmills. In 95% of cases, they are not
economically feasible. Yet people do them anyway, and because they
are guilted into it.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
tg
> On 2010-01-02, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 8:26 am, "S. Caro" <sc...@mux-net-88.com> wrote:
> >> Harry Hope wrote:
>
> >> >http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
>
> >> And businesses that will profit from attempting to halt CO2 emissions are
> >> promoting the science of climate change.. (Including individuals like Al Gore).
>
> >> Who would have thought?
>
> > Of course. But since there's no potential downside to improving the
> > insulation in your house,
>
> Sure there is. Overinvestment can be a problem.
>
> I would love to have geothermal heating and cooling. I have the money
> to invest in it. But with the rocky soil in my area, the cost of drilling
> is large and payback is in the 17 year range. Too long.
I guess you don't have faith in the free market's ability to find the
optimal solution. If one page in the building code specifies the
energy consumption per cubic foot for a building, then people will
figure out the best way to achieve it---just like they do for load
bearing and other characteristics.
The business of 'payback' makes absolutely no sense in any event.
People remodel all the time even though there is abundant data that
they will *NEVER* recover their cost. If someone chooses to make an
*investment* in an alternative energy source, that is a far wiser
*investment*, because they are gambling on electricity prices going
up.
>
> > or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
> > such actions, why is that equivalent?
>
> Example -- home windmills. In 95% of cases, they are not
> economically feasible. Yet people do them anyway, and because they
> are guilted into it.
>
How is an energy tax 'guilting' someone?
-tg
I M @ good guy
wrote:
No down side to anybody but the guy that
doesn't have the money, can't get slum bums
to work for reasonable wage, too old or too
infirm to take on a loan to get the money,
or a number of other reasons for not being
able to pay.
Why do you assume the houses aren't
insulated?
When did you get elected caretaker
of the world?
TUKA
>> On 2010-01-02, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 2, 8:26�am, "S. Caro" <sc...@mux-net-88.com> wrote:
>> >> Harry Hope wrote:
>>
>> >> >http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
>>
>> >> And businesses that will profit from attempting to halt CO2 emissions are
>> >> promoting the science of climate change.. �(Including individuals like Al Gore).
>>
>> >> Who would have thought?
>>
>> > Of course. But since there's no potential downside to improving the
>> > insulation in your house,
>>
>> Sure there is. Overinvestment can be a problem.
>>
>> I would love to have geothermal heating and cooling. I have the money
>> to invest in it. But with the rocky soil in my area, the cost of drilling
>> is large and payback is in the 17 year range. Too long.
>
> I guess you don't have faith in the free market's ability to find the
> optimal solution. If one page in the building code specifies the
> energy consumption per cubic foot for a building, then people will
> figure out the best way to achieve it---just like they do for load
> bearing and other characteristics.
But will it be cost-effective?
>
> The business of 'payback' makes absolutely no sense in any event.
Huh? Maybe to communists it doesn't.
> People remodel all the time even though there is abundant data that
> they will *NEVER* recover their cost. If someone chooses to make an
> *investment* in an alternative energy source, that is a far wiser
> *investment*, because they are gambling on electricity prices going
> up.
It is far wiser because it may not pay for itself? Hmm. Your intentions
are showing.
>
>>
>> > or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
>> > such actions, why is that equivalent?
>>
>> Example -- home windmills. In 95% of cases, they are not
>> economically feasible. Yet people do them anyway, and because they
>> are guilted into it.
>>
>
> How is an energy tax 'guilting' someone?
There isn't a tax at this time. So if you do the windmill installation,
you are not doing it for an economic reason.
Taxing energy at too great a level is trying to legislate innovation.
That would be fine if you can control the universe, but since you have
no way to force China and India to do it you are doing nothing but
making countries taxing fossil fuels non-competitive.
You can try to legislate pi == 3. It may or may not be successful.
tg
Your inability to read is showing. Or you are some kind of religious
freak who would rather place a bet that is going to lose (e.g. remodel
a kitchen) instead of one that *might* win (betting that electricity
prices will go up,)
You choose, and let us know.
>
>
> >> > or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
> >> > such actions, why is that equivalent?
>
> >> Example -- home windmills. In 95% of cases, they are not
> >> economically feasible. Yet people do them anyway, and because they
> >> are guilted into it.
>
> > How is an energy tax 'guilting' someone?
>
> There isn't a tax at this time. So if you do the windmill installation,
> you are not doing it for an economic reason.
>
> Taxing energy at too great a level is trying to legislate innovation.
> That would be fine if you can control the universe,
As I suspected, another stealth creationist who doesn't believe in the
free market.
-tg
Monkey Clumps
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
>
> Saturday, January 2, 2010
>
> By FRANKE WILMER
>
> The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
> leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
> extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
>
> Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
> emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
> tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
> ago.
>
> Everyone with a high school education should know that skepticism —
> research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
> researched hypotheses — is built into the process of scientific
> inquiry.
>
> The best science aims to disprove or “falsify” a strong hypothesis —
> almost none of our scientific knowledge has a 100 percent probability
> of being true.
>
> Statistically, findings with probabilities above 95 percent are
> treated as knowledge that should be acted on as true.
Of course the probability calculations themselves can be severely
flawed due to incomplete knowledge. In 1300 some mathematician may
have determined there is a 95% probability that the world is flat.
>
> Scientific knowledge where probabilities affect human health and
> safety is routinely used in engineering and medicine.
>
> Building safe bridges means knowing the probability that based on
> engineering science, a structure will safely hold a certain amount of
> weight.
No, structural design is not based on probability and statistics.
Maximum stresses in critical components are calculated and significant
factors of safety against the material failure stresses are required
by the design codes. Its not a guessing game.
>
> Medical patients are told their chances of surviving cancer with
> different treatment alternatives, none with 100 percent certainty of
> success.
>
> Statistical probability
>
> The International Panel on Climate Change concluded, with a
> statistical probability of 99 percent, that most of the earth’s land
> base will continue experiencing more warmer and fewer colder days.
Big deal. That number was generated by the same flawed computer models
that can't recreate the past, much less predict the future.
>
> With statistical confidence of 90 percent the IPCC predicted
> increasing frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation.
What happened to all the droughts they were predicting? Who cares
anyway? Its just more computer generated BS.
>
> Bozeman temperatures now average 7 degrees higher than in 1950, 26
> glaciers remain of 150 that were in Glacier National Park in 1850, and
> pine beetles killed 17 million more trees on 2 million to 3 million
> acres.
>
> Over 90 percent of the world’s scientists agree that we are
> experiencing effects of human-induced climate change, including the
> American Association for the Advancement of Science, International
> Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences,
> American Geophysical Union, World Meteorological Organization,
> American Academy of Pediatrics, World Federation of Public Health
> Associations, American Institute of Physics, and 69 other national and
> international science organizations. Only six scientific organizations
> take a noncommittal position.
>
> The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, once the lone
> dissenting scientific organization, rescinded its dissent in 2007 to
> become the sixth organization adopting a noncommittal position.
>
> Deniers claim a scientific conspiracy but fail to identify any motive
> for climate researchers to mislead the public.
The motive for climate researchers is clear: more research funds to
study the impending disaster. The motive for politicians is also
clear: an excuse to levy massive new taxes and expand bureaucratic
control over huge portions of the economy. Whoever wrote this article
was a stupid fuck.
>
> It’s easy, on the other hand, to see a motive for denial — short-term
> profit from continuing to produce the greenhouse gases that cause
> global warming.
>
> Most Montanans wouldn’t mind a slightly warmer climate, but that’s not
> what the science is about.
It should be what the science is about. Why aren't slightly
increasing temperatures a benefit? Common sense suggests they are.
>
> It’s about the extinction of species that, according to Nobel Laureate
> Dr. Eric Chivian of the Harvard Medical School, may provide medically
> valuable knowledge,
That's a pretty big *may*. Is it worth spending a trillions dollars
on that possibility that some special creature that has yet to be
discovered and *might* cure a disease will be wiped out by global
warming? Talk about the slimmest of threads.
>like treatments for peptic ulcer disease affecting
> 25 million Americans, end stage renal disease that kills 80,000
> Americans a year, osteoporosis that kills 70,000 Americans a year,
>
> Type 2 diabetes killing a quarter of a million people each year, and
> arrhythmias.
What do these diseases have to do with global warming? Thats the
rationale for spending a trillion dollars to reduce carbon emissions?
What a joke.
>
> 90% of scientists agree
>
> It’s about the economic and geo-strategic impact of regional climate
> change on agriculture and energy.
First off, they can't predict what is going to happen where.
Secondly, why are the changes bad? For the most part warmer
temperatures mean more moisture and that should be a benefit.
>
> It’s about migrations of species like bark beetles and their impact on
> forestry and wildfires.
Natural habitats will shift slowly towards the poles. Big deal.
>
> In impoverished countries it’s about more death and suffering from
> increases in malaria and water and air-borne diseases.
For an area that already has malaria (most of the third world) why
would global warming mean more malaria? It makes no sense.
>
> It’s about increased radiation and corresponding increases in skin
> cancer and melanoma, particularly in higher altitudes.
What does this have to do with global warming?
>
> Knowing that 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 80 percent in
> women are caused by smoking, most of us don’t smoke and encourage our
> loved ones to quit.
What does this have to do with global warming?
>
> When 90 percent of scientists agree that the effects of climate change
> put us all at risk, and that there is a high probability that failure
> to change our behavior by 2015 will make those effects difficult or
> impossible to reverse, we should take that just as seriously as other
> scientific facts regarding risks to our health and lives that we
> routinely accept and, accordingly, change our behavior.
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Harry Hoax
Fuck that and fuck you.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
It is not possible for you to understand his
situation, a payback time of 17 years sounds
good, IF he is under 50, IF he plans to live in
the house for 17 years, IF no problems occur
with drilling a hole 2000 feet or a trench
10 or 12 feet deep.
More shallow geothermal needs to be
done, but there may be a complete lack of
experienced contractors in some areas.
>> >> > or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
>> >> > such actions, why is that equivalent?
>>
>> >> Example -- home windmills. In 95% of cases, they are not
>> >> economically feasible. Yet people do them anyway, and because they
>> >> are guilted into it.
>>
>> > How is an energy tax 'guilting' someone?
>>
>> There isn't a tax at this time. So if you do the windmill installation,
>> you are not doing it for an economic reason.
>>
>> Taxing energy at too great a level is trying to legislate innovation.
>> That would be fine if you can control the universe,
>
>As I suspected, another stealth creationist who doesn't believe in the
>free market.
>
>-tg
Why don't you stop the atheist nothingness remarks,
siding with demented heathens will not make friends.
Peter Franks
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_cc96164c-f749-11de-b7f9-001cc4c03286.html
> ...
Do skeptics hide their data?
Do skeptics destroy their data?
Did you analyze the other half of your premise? Have you studied
businesses that profit from the halting of CO2 emissions that promote
science of climate change?
Well?
Peter Franks
> On Jan 2, 9:00 am, TUKA <t...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-01-02, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 2, 8:26 am, "S. Caro" <sc...@mux-net-88.com> wrote:
>>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>>> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
>>>> And businesses that will profit from attempting to halt CO2 emissions are
>>>> promoting the science of climate change.. (Including individuals like Al Gore).
>>>> Who would have thought?
>>> Of course. But since there's no potential downside to improving the
>>> insulation in your house,
>> Sure there is. Overinvestment can be a problem.
>>
>> I would love to have geothermal heating and cooling. I have the money
>> to invest in it. But with the rocky soil in my area, the cost of drilling
>> is large and payback is in the 17 year range. Too long.
>
> I guess you don't have faith in the free market's ability to find the
> optimal solution. If one page in the building code specifies the
> energy consumption per cubic foot for a building, then people will
> figure out the best way to achieve it---just like they do for load
> bearing and other characteristics.
>
> The business of 'payback' makes absolutely no sense in any event.
> People remodel all the time even though there is abundant data that
> they will *NEVER* recover their cost.
That's right - and it is their choice, and presumably made at their
pleasure.
> If someone chooses to make an
> *investment* in an alternative energy source, that is a far wiser
> *investment*, because they are gambling on electricity prices going
> up.
Again, choice. If someone wants to sink the tens-of-thousands of
dollars into geo, wind, or solar, they are free to do it.
That's not the core of the problem though. What the propagandists want
is to COMPEL people to make choices that they feel is most appropriate.
To make this easier to understand: eliminate freedom. Take a casual
open-eyed look around and you will see exactly what I mean.
Peter Franks
Geothermal is *A* possible solution, but not *THE* solution.
Solar is *A* possible solution, but not *THE* solution.
Wind is *A* possible solution, but not *THE* solution.
Generally, none of these are cost effective when centralized, and are
far less cost effective when decentralized.
The only solution is one created out by the locality, through protracted
and rational thought. A solution that may (or may not!) include the
above, along w/ hydro, coal/petro, nuclear, etc.
There is NO one size fits all solution. And compulsion NEVER can be
part of the solution.
TUKA
If I am doing it to *sell* the house, I agree that it is a loser.
But otherwise, are you saying my desire to have a better kitchen is a
loser? I don't get it. If I get the kitchen I want at a price I want to
pay, I have won.
> instead of one that *might* win (betting that electricity
> prices will go up,)
Seeing as how the only way they will go up is if the government taxes
us into non-competitiveness, I think I would be better off to invest
my money in political contributions. Al Gore shouldn't have it *all*
his own way....
>
> You choose, and let us know.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> > or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
>> >> > such actions, why is that equivalent?
>>
>> >> Example -- home windmills. In 95% of cases, they are not
>> >> economically feasible. Yet people do them anyway, and because they
>> >> are guilted into it.
>>
>> > How is an energy tax 'guilting' someone?
>>
>> There isn't a tax at this time. So if you do the windmill installation,
>> you are not doing it for an economic reason.
>>
>> Taxing energy at too great a level is trying to legislate innovation.
>> That would be fine if you can control the universe,
>
> As I suspected, another stealth creationist
Huh? Where does that come from?
> who doesn't believe in the free market.
I certainly do believe in the free market. But not what you
communists call one -- one that is made "free" by taxation.
TUKA
It is very rarely right to invest in an item with a payback
of less than 12 years unless it is one that you can get near
dollar-for-dollar sale upgrade on. Geothermal heating doesn't
qualify.
>
> More shallow geothermal needs to be done, but there may be a
> complete lack of experienced contractors in some areas.
>
The terrain mitigates against shallow geothermal. I would do it
if I could, believe me. I had geothermal at my last house and it
was fantastic.
>
>>> >> > or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
>>> >> > such actions, why is that equivalent?
>>>
>>> >> Example -- home windmills. In 95% of cases, they are not
>>> >> economically feasible. Yet people do them anyway, and because they
>>> >> are guilted into it.
>>>
>>> > How is an energy tax 'guilting' someone?
>>>
>>> There isn't a tax at this time. So if you do the windmill installation,
>>> you are not doing it for an economic reason.
>>>
>>> Taxing energy at too great a level is trying to legislate innovation.
>>> That would be fine if you can control the universe,
>>
>>As I suspected, another stealth creationist who doesn't believe in the
>>free market.
>>
>>-tg
>
> Why don't you stop the atheist nothingness remarks,
> siding with demented heathens will not make friends.
What is ironic is that he is calling me a "stealth creationist" when I am far more
atheist than I am theist. 8-)
He on the other hand didn't seem to object when I suggested he might be
a communist. Anyone who wants the government to direct commerce that
minutely typically is...
tg
Ok, the answer is that you *are* a religious freak.
> I think I would be better off to invest
> my money in political contributions. Al Gore shouldn't have it *all*
> his own way....
>
>
>
>
>
> > You choose, and let us know.
>
> >> >> > or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
> >> >> > such actions, why is that equivalent?
>
> >> >> Example -- home windmills. In 95% of cases, they are not
> >> >> economically feasible. Yet people do them anyway, and because they
> >> >> are guilted into it.
>
> >> > How is an energy tax 'guilting' someone?
>
> >> There isn't a tax at this time. So if you do the windmill installation,
> >> you are not doing it for an economic reason.
>
> >> Taxing energy at too great a level is trying to legislate innovation.
> >> That would be fine if you can control the universe,
>
> > As I suspected, another stealth creationist
>
> Huh? Where does that come from?
>
> > who doesn't believe in the free market.
>
> I certainly do believe in the free market. But not what you
> communists call one -- one that is made "free" by taxation.
>
Oh yeah---you don't need courts and police and a money system and
roads and so on to have a free market. I always forget how you guys
who live in Somalia are so much better off.....
tg
You probably don't own any land, do you.
-tg
I M @ good guy
I forgot to add, IF the guy HAS to replace his
central air, and IF he has enough space, then he
should consider shallow geothermal, it can save
half on heating and 80 percent on cooling, but
is worthless if the power fails.
mrbawana2u
You're a left-turd retard, moron.
Educate your stupid ass:
========================================
In addition to the “global warming” rip-off, you can add
another huge international racketeering operation—
the H1N1 “pandemic” of 2009.
Both of these ploys were designed to fleece the
western nations of billions, possibly trillions,
of dollars. In the case of the H1N1 scam, the
western governments have already coughed up
billions of dollars for vaccines to prevent a
bogus “pandemic.” That means that we,
the taxpayers, have been ripped-off yet again.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18527
=======================================
the scientific evidence for AGW is remarkably weak.
At Icecap, Lee Gerhard, geologist and reviewer for
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
sums up the key scientific evidence with admirable brevity:
It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate
when they do speak out, that they ignore media
hype and maintain a clinical detachment from
social or other agendas. There are facts and
data that are ignored in the maelstrom of
social and economic agendas swirling
about Copenhagen. Greenhouse gases
and their effects are well-known.
Here are some of things we know:
• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor,
comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for
nearly 100 years.
It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are
near the lowest in geologic history.
• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not
statistically significant.
• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels
to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically
declines with increasing concentration. At present levels,
any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.
We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:
• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time,
in both directions and at many scales of intensity.
• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934,
not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records
in the world.
• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year
cycle,
and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling
absolutely
falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling
factor in Earth temperature.
• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate
Optimum (MCO)
was real and that the "hockey stick" graphic that attempted to deny
that fact was at best
bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th
century.
• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and
fallen, including
the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100
years are in
normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly,
rate of change.
Contrary to many public statements:
• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the
cause of the temperature change.
• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-
year lows.
Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing
population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and
property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or
severity of storms.
• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme
cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years
extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger
than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice
extent was significantly above the 30-year average.
There are only 30 years of records.
• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the
last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level
rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten
centimeters rise in this century.
The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data
and computer programs. The computer programs are the source
of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data.
Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.
Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and
inflammatory language. For instance, the word "ever" is
misused by media and in public pronouncements alike.
It does not mean "in the last 20 years," or "the last 70 years."
"Ever" means the last 4.5 billion years.
For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting,
with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask,
"How long is ever?" The answer is since 1979.
And then ask, "Is it still warming?" The answer
is unequivocally "No." Earth temperatures are cooling.
Similarly, the word "unprecedented" cannot be
legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000
years.
=============================================================
The "Science" Mantra
By Thomas Sowell
Science is one of the great achievements of the human mind
and the biggest reason why we live not only longer but more
vigorously in our old age, in addition to all the ways in which it
provides us with things that make life easier and more enjoyable.
Like anything valuable, science has been seized upon by politicians
and ideologues,
and used to forward their own agendas. This started long ago, as far
back as the
18th century, when the Marquis de Condorcet coined the term "social
science"
to describe various theories he favored. In the 19th century, Karl
Marx and
Friedrich Engels distinguished their own brand of socialism as
"scientific socialism."
By the 20th century, all sorts of notions wrapped themselves in the
mantle of "science."
"Global warming" hysteria is only the latest in this long line of
notions,
whose main argument is that there is no argument, because it is
"science."
The recently revealed destruction of raw data at the bottom of the
global warming hysteria, as well as revelations of attempts to
prevent critics of this hysteria from being published in leading
journals,
suggests that the disinterested search for truth-- the hallmark of
real science--
has taken a back seat to a political crusade.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/22/the_science_mantra__99638.html
we need to look at the way Kyoto has turned into cash for many of the
biggest names
in the climate change world, and to do that we need to understand how
the whole
carbon trading scheme works.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-how-to-follow-the-money/?print=1
Peter Franks
?!
What is that supposed to mean?
Come on, get with the topic of conversation for a moment so that we can
have a rational discussion.
tg
The topic is that you are a religious freak, so it isn't possible to
have a rational conversation with you. And when I say that, it is with
respect for actual sane religious people.
So you don't own any land....
-tg
TUKA
Another ad-hominem. Ho hum.
>
>> I think I would be better off to invest
>> my money in political contributions. Al Gore shouldn't have it *all*
>> his own way....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > You choose, and let us know.
>>
>> >> >> > or generally taxing fossil fuels, or other
>> >> >> > such actions, why is that equivalent?
>>
>> >> >> Example -- home windmills. In 95% of cases, they are not
>> >> >> economically feasible. Yet people do them anyway, and because they
>> >> >> are guilted into it.
>>
>> >> > How is an energy tax 'guilting' someone?
>>
>> >> There isn't a tax at this time. So if you do the windmill installation,
>> >> you are not doing it for an economic reason.
>>
>> >> Taxing energy at too great a level is trying to legislate innovation.
>> >> That would be fine if you can control the universe,
>>
>> > As I suspected, another stealth creationist
>>
>> Huh? Where does that come from?
>>
>> > who doesn't believe in the free market.
>>
>> I certainly do believe in the free market. But not what you
>> communists call one -- one that is made "free" by taxation.
>>
>
> Oh yeah---you don't need courts and police and a money system and
> roads and so on to have a free market. I always forget how you guys
> who live in Somalia are so much better off.....
That is a completely different situation, and you know it. Or should.
But you can't address the issues, so you throw out a red herring.
Red herrings, ad-hominems, appeals to ignorance and authority. It's
all you AGW guys got.
Peter Franks
It never ceases to amaze me how such simple minds can concoct such
elaborate fabrications.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Harry Hope was quoting from:
>>
>> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_cc96164c-f749-11de-b7f9-001cc4c03286.html
>>
>> Saturday, January 2, 2010 By FRANKE WILMER
>>
>> The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
>> leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
>> extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
>>
>> Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
>> emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
>> tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
>> ago.
>>
>> research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
>> inquiry.
>
> ..
>
> Do skeptics hide their data?
Nope, the global warming cranks don't have any data.
> Do skeptics destroy their data?
No, they just 'cherry-pick the data that they want..
> Did you analyze the other half of your premise?
Yes, it was false..
> Have you studied businesses that profit from the halting
> of CO2 emissions that promote science of climate change?
Yup..
--Apparently, you haven't..
Curly Surmudgeon
> It never ceases to amaze me how such simple minds can concoct such
> elaborate fabrications.
Like god?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://thegreen.stanleylieber.com/src/956977392.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mrbawana2u
> On 1/2/2010 11:00 AM, Fetid Crank was writhing in denials:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Harry Hope was quoting from:
>
>
> >> Saturday, January 2, 2010 By FRANKE WILMER
>
> >> The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
> >> leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
> >> extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
>
> >> Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
> >> emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
> >> tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
> >> ago.
>
> >> research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
Peter Franks
That's all you have? A couple of off the cuff responses?
That isn't a suitable answer. Post a legitimate response with
references, otherwise you, along w/ the OP are nothing more than pawns.
Man_of_Mind
>
> Man_of_Mind was laughing, at the expense of:
Nope, but that's all your counter-argument warranted..
> That isn't a suitable answer
TFB, it's all your false counter-argument deserved..
> Post a legitimate response with references
I have, and will again, when it suits me, Fetid Crank..
--You have yet to present a valid counter-argument..
dkat
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/art...
>
> Saturday, January 2, 2010
>
> By FRANKE WILMER
>
> The most disappointing thing about the small number of political
> leaders denying the science of climate change is that it reveals the
> extent of scientific illiteracy in America.
>
> Today big businesses that profit from our failure to halt CO2
> emissions deny the science of climate change the same way that big
> tobacco challenged science that linked smoking to lung cancer decades
> ago.
>
> research aimed at disproving findings substantiated by rigorously
> inquiry.
>
> The best science aims to disprove or “falsify” a strong hypothesis —
> almost none of our scientific knowledge has a 100 percent probability
> of being true.
>
> Statistically, findings with probabilities above 95 percent are
> treated as knowledge that should be acted on as true.
>
> safety is routinely used in engineering and medicine.
>
> Building safe bridges means knowing the probability that based on
> engineering science, a structure will safely hold a certain amount of
> weight.
>
> different treatment alternatives, none with 100 percent certainty of
> success.
>
> Statistical probability
>
> The International Panel on Climate Change concluded, with a
> statistical probability of 99 percent, that most of the earth’s land
> base will continue experiencing more warmer and fewer colder days.
>
> increasing frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation.
>
> glaciers remain of 150 that were in Glacier National Park in 1850, and
> pine beetles killed 17 million more trees on 2 million to 3 million
> acres.
>
> Over 90 percent of the world’s scientists agree that we are
> experiencing effects of human-induced climate change, including the
> American Association for the Advancement of Science, International
> Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences,
> American Geophysical Union, World Meteorological Organization,
> American Academy of Pediatrics, World Federation of Public Health
> Associations, American Institute of Physics, and 69 other national and
> international science organizations. Only six scientific organizations
> take a noncommittal position.
>
> The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, once the lone
> dissenting scientific organization, rescinded its dissent in 2007 to
> become the sixth organization adopting a noncommittal position.
>
> Deniers claim a scientific conspiracy but fail to identify any motive
> for climate researchers to mislead the public.
>
> profit from continuing to produce the greenhouse gases that cause
> global warming.
>
> Most Montanans wouldn’t mind a slightly warmer climate, but that’s not
> what the science is about.
>
> Dr. Eric Chivian of the Harvard Medical School, may provide medically
> 25 million Americans, end stage renal disease that kills 80,000
> Americans a year, osteoporosis that kills 70,000 Americans a year,
>
> Type 2 diabetes killing a quarter of a million people each year, and
> arrhythmias.
>
>
> It’s about the economic and geo-strategic impact of regional climate
> change on agriculture and energy.
>
> forestry and wildfires.
>
> increases in malaria and water and air-borne diseases.
>
> cancer and melanoma, particularly in higher altitudes.
>
> women are caused by smoking, most of us don’t smoke and encourage our
> loved ones to quit.
>
> put us all at risk, and that there is a high probability that failure
> to change our behavior by 2015 will make those effects difficult or
> impossible to reverse, we should take that just as seriously as other
> scientific facts regarding risks to our health and lives that we
> routinely accept and, accordingly, change our behavior.
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Harry
Ask someone if they are told buy a credible source "there is a 95%
chance that you will be shot and killed if you walk out your front
door today", will they walk out their front door?
My guess is that they might then get it.
Edmund Kerendian
will almost always be making money from carbon fuels. What do you
think? You really think these guys will care about anything?
It's all about profits and bottom line, and out there its a dog eat
dog world.
Check out this article on businesses that help out the environment
I M @ good guy
<edmundk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't know if CO2 emissions will ever stop since these businesses
>will almost always be making money from carbon fuels. What do you
>think? You really think these guys will care about anything?
Stop breathing, breath contains a high
percentage of CO2.
>It's all about profits and bottom line, and out there its a dog eat
>dog world.
What is your job, is it more important than
keeping me warm?
>Check out this article on businesses that help out the environment
>
>http://businessesthatprofit.com/industrial/carbon-co2-emissions-business-entrepreneurship-opportunities-greencareersguide/
Do you have a link about businesses that
consider humans as important as trees or ice?