Climate Change - Open Letter

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]drewh wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:

You sir are a very scary person I’ve read most of your posts and they are all frightening to say the least. It’s happening, get over it and as a country lets do something about it. [/quote]

Oh I have no doubt for the next 2 years I will have to see something pass, but then my guy will enter in and will repeal all the nonsense, same thing that is going to happen with the health care bill.

Whats scary about a limited government? Is Freedom really that scary? There is no “we”.[/quote]
I don’t foresee any conservatives in office for quite some time. [/quote]

I haven’t seen any since Barry Goldwater.

82

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

So I’ll take it that you have no qualifications to interpret the data presented or to evaluate its veracity. Neither do I. Im going to take the word of the worlds leading scientists and not some fringe website that provides 3 citations for pages and pages of dense text.
[/quote]

LMAO - just keep dodging the data, good luck with that

If you can’t understand this, you obviously wouldn’t be able to the “adjusted” data used by your “experts” but you still accept the veracity of that data- nice. Just randomly choose which data sounds nicest to you and go with that - you’ll go far on that kind of logic . . . . no, really . . .[/quote]

You have yet to show me that you have any kind of understanding of this data either. I freely admit that I don’t and I don’t have time to look up comparisons of the earths atmosphere to convection and induction ovens. I leave a lot of complicated analysis to experts. Again, I’m not randomly choosing data. I’m trusting scientific experts and being skeptical of some website linked to me on a muscle building website where even the few citations provided are improperly cited making it all but impossible to efficiently evaluate the veracity of any of it.
[/quote]

Dance on, Dance on . . … If you looked at my post, you’ll see I gave you two links that I found with, what, maybe 30 seconds with google search. In addition, I also provided you with the expert witness of a member of the very climate panel you so admire given before congress just a few days ago, and I also gave you a very basic principle backed up by the data you admire from the panel, something very easy to prove dates of rise in temp compared to dates of rise in co2 - - - now, I have given you some expert witness and a factual principle disproving AGW altogether, and your only reply is asking me what my qualifications are . . . wow - very intellectually stimulating conversation - glad you’d rather discuss me than the data - my ego loves the nice tender massage you are trying to give it, just a little lower, yeah, right there . . . ohhh sweetie, such nice hands . . . [/quote]

google search is not reliable
That one link, I think the one with the ‘expert witness’ wouldnt work for me.
I am assuming you are reluctant to post any qualifications that would lead me to view your posts as more credible because you have no such credentials.
This further leads me to believe that you are being duped by poor science yourself.

I beleive scientists at harvard, MIT, Yale, Berkeley etc can be wrong but I trust them a whole lot more than I trust you.[/quote]

ROTF LMAO - you are a complete and total nutjob!!! - I didn’t write the papers, compile the data or draw the conclusions - so my qualifications are completely irrelevant to the data - the DATA is what is important, not me. So it is not a matter of trusting me unless I wrote the paper. I didn’t, so your endless rabbit trails are exactly what they appear to be - you ignoring the data by trying to make the discussion about me - that would be an “ad homen” logical fallacy.

Just because you can’t understand some basic math and science formulae doesn’t mean the rest of us suffer from the same lack of education . . . nor are those links the only ones avialable and since i can’t scan my books into files for you, you might have to do a little study on yor own -oh wait, you can’t comprehend the basic stuff . . . you’re right . . .you just go right on trusting all of those other people to tell you what to believe. They’ll take good care of your fragile intellect . . . . (heavy sarcasm intended)

But, just keep on dodging the data, dance on . . . dance on . . .

83

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:

You sir are a very scary person I’ve read most of your posts and they are all frightening to say the least. It’s happening, get over it and as a country lets do something about it. [/quote]

Oh I have no doubt for the next 2 years I will have to see something pass, but then my guy will enter in and will repeal all the nonsense, same thing that is going to happen with the health care bill.

Whats scary about a limited government? Is Freedom really that scary? There is no “we”.[/quote]
I don’t foresee any conservatives in office for quite some time. [/quote]

I haven’t seen any since Barry Goldwater.[/quote]

well, that settles it guys. Mak has never seen another conservative politician since Goldwater, so we just need to close down the shop, shred the files, turn out the light and go home. He’s finished the conservative movement with this amazing insight. Thanks Mak, you saved us from years of pointless effort and meaningless struggle . . .(again,heavy sarcasm intended)

84

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:

You sir are a very scary person I’ve read most of your posts and they are all frightening to say the least. It’s happening, get over it and as a country lets do something about it. [/quote]

Oh I have no doubt for the next 2 years I will have to see something pass, but then my guy will enter in and will repeal all the nonsense, same thing that is going to happen with the health care bill.

Whats scary about a limited government? Is Freedom really that scary? There is no “we”.[/quote]
I don’t foresee any conservatives in office for quite some time. [/quote]

I haven’t seen any since Barry Goldwater.[/quote]

Ron Paul?

85

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:

You sir are a very scary person I’ve read most of your posts and they are all frightening to say the least. It’s happening, get over it and as a country lets do something about it. [/quote]

Oh I have no doubt for the next 2 years I will have to see something pass, but then my guy will enter in and will repeal all the nonsense, same thing that is going to happen with the health care bill.

Whats scary about a limited government? Is Freedom really that scary? There is no “we”.[/quote]
I don’t foresee any conservatives in office for quite some time. [/quote]

I haven’t seen any since Barry Goldwater.[/quote]

Ron Paul?[/quote]

The answer there is a resounding maybe.

I’ve always seen him as more of a Libertarian than Republican, although by the same standards I could argue the same for Goldwater. So in fact you may be right, but in all honesty, we need to see more of Ron Paul before we can claim that.

I want to see the man run for President, win or lose but see it through to the bitter end. If he can stick with his policies, then he can do some amazing things for America.

86

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

So I’ll take it that you have no qualifications to interpret the data presented or to evaluate its veracity. Neither do I. Im going to take the word of the worlds leading scientists and not some fringe website that provides 3 citations for pages and pages of dense text.
[/quote]

LMAO - just keep dodging the data, good luck with that

If you can’t understand this, you obviously wouldn’t be able to the “adjusted” data used by your “experts” but you still accept the veracity of that data- nice. Just randomly choose which data sounds nicest to you and go with that - you’ll go far on that kind of logic . . . . no, really . . .[/quote]

You have yet to show me that you have any kind of understanding of this data either. I freely admit that I don’t and I don’t have time to look up comparisons of the earths atmosphere to convection and induction ovens. I leave a lot of complicated analysis to experts.

Again, I’m not randomly choosing data. I’m trusting scientific experts and being skeptical of some website linked to me on a muscle building website where even the few citations provided are improperly cited making it all but impossible to efficiently evaluate the veracity of any of it.
[/quote]

Dance on, Dance on . . … If you looked at my post, you’ll see I gave you two links that I found with, what, maybe 30 seconds with google search. In addition, I also provided you with the expert witness of a member of the very climate panel you so admire given before congress just a few days ago,

and I also gave you a very basic principle backed up by the data you admire from the panel, something very easy to prove dates of rise in temp compared to dates of rise in co2 - - - now, I have given you some expert witness and a factual principle disproving AGW altogether, and your only reply is asking me what my qualifications are . . .

wow - very intellectually stimulating conversation - glad you’d rather discuss me than the data - my ego loves the nice tender massage you are trying to give it, just a little lower, yeah, right there . . . ohhh sweetie, such nice hands . . . [/quote]

google search is not reliable
That one link, I think the one with the ‘expert witness’ wouldnt work for me.

I am assuming you are reluctant to post any qualifications that would lead me to view your posts as more credible because you have no such credentials.
This further leads me to believe that you are being duped by poor science yourself.

I beleive scientists at harvard, MIT, Yale, Berkeley etc can be wrong but I trust them a whole lot more than I trust you.[/quote]

ROTF LMAO - you are a complete and total nutjob!!! - I didn’t write the papers, compile the data or draw the conclusions - so my qualifications are completely irrelevant to the data - the DATA is what is important, not me. So it is not a matter of trusting me unless I wrote the paper.

I didn’t, so your endless rabbit trails are exactly what they appear to be - you ignoring the data by trying to make the discussion about me - that would be an “ad homen” logical fallacy.

Just because you can’t understand some basic math and science formulae doesn’t mean the rest of us suffer from the same lack of education . . . nor are those links the only ones avialable and since i can’t scan my books into files for you, you might have to do a little study on yor own -oh wait, you can’t comprehend the basic stuff . . .

you’re right . . .you just go right on trusting all of those other people to tell you what to believe. They’ll take good care of your fragile intellect . . . . (heavy sarcasm intended)

But, just keep on dodging the data, dance on . . . dance on . . . [/quote]

Not that a college degree is a requirement to be an educated person but, do you have one? In what field(s)?

Not that you couldn’t just make something up, but lets just say I’ll trust you.

87

dance on, dance on . . . the data is still there . . .

88

You know what on second thought, I just read through some of your other threads. Heres a telling quote from your very own self.

“thanks for interrupting our blissful ignorance with your smelly facts . . . go away or I shall taunt you a second time . . . .”

Nice.

Your entire post history tells me I will get not one single straight answer from you. When challenged you never back up your assertions. Your tactics are personal attacks and walls of text.

89

[quote]Eli B wrote:
You know what on second thought, I just read through some of your other threads. Heres a telling quote from your very own self.

“thanks for interrupting our blissful ignorance with your smelly facts . . . go away or I shall taunt you a second time . . . .”

Nice.

Your entire post history tells me I will get not one single straight answer from you. When challenged you never back up your assertions. Your tactics are personal attacks and walls of text.[/quote]

He has given you sources, what more do you want.

90

[quote]Eli B wrote:
You know what on second thought, I just read through some of your other threads. Heres a telling quote from your very own self.

“thanks for interrupting our blissful ignorance with your smelly facts . . . go away or I shall taunt you a second time . . . .”

Nice.

Your entire post history tells me I will get not one single straight answer from you. When challenged you never back up your assertions. Your tactics are personal attacks and walls of text.[/quote]

Goodness, you are just totally captivated with me. I’m flattered . . and a little worried . . .

When you quote me - try to remember context. and that I use heavy sarcasm (see comments above) when in the mood.

If you will actually read that whole thread, you will see that I, as always, provided the original data and the logical conclusions in great detail concerning the forestation calculations relied on today.

Walls of text? umm, you mean like data, logical constructs, etc,why yes, I thought that was what a real discussion was supposed to include. But apparently, you’d rather focus on me. Well, I like my back rubbed after a good workout, I like my steaks cooked with a red center, I like my green tea in tall glass, no ice oh and be a sweetie and get me a few more books for my library.

As much as you are fascinated with me, and despite how desperately you are clinging to your ad homen fallacy, I will still just point you back to the data and the conclusions as drawn by experts in their own fields and hope that someday, you will actually do a little individual research on your own. Until then- dance on, dance on

91

See, Irish Steel?

People like me and you just don’t understand the scientifical methodistics of climbatological changee-ology.

We should just assume that it is real, that we are at some nebulous tipping point, and “Deal with it” by trying to buy ourselves a new environment in the form of hybrid cars, green products and services, and the same packaged plastic crap with a new earth tone logo on it that says it is “green”.

92

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:

You sir are a very scary person I’ve read most of your posts and they are all frightening to say the least. It’s happening, get over it and as a country lets do something about it. [/quote]

Oh I have no doubt for the next 2 years I will have to see something pass, but then my guy will enter in and will repeal all the nonsense, same thing that is going to happen with the health care bill.

Whats scary about a limited government? Is Freedom really that scary? There is no “we”.[/quote]
I don’t foresee any conservatives in office for quite some time. [/quote]

I haven’t seen any since Barry Goldwater.[/quote]

well, that settles it guys. Mak has never seen another conservative politician since Goldwater, so we just need to close down the shop, shred the files, turn out the light and go home. He’s finished the conservative movement with this amazing insight. Thanks Mak, you saved us from years of pointless effort and meaningless struggle . . .(again,heavy sarcasm intended)[/quote]

How did Barry Goldwater ever come to be considered a conservative?

93

Lets see the effects of CO2

I don’t have a degree from Harvard but I got some evidence to destroy the CO2 myth.

95

Temperature of the planet has been shown to be directly correlated with the sun’s activity.

96

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
See, Irish Steel?

People like me and you just don’t understand the scientifical methodistics of climbatological changee-ology.

We should just assume that it is real, that we are at some nebulous tipping point, and “Deal with it” by trying to buy ourselves a new environment in the form of hybrid cars, green products and services, and the same packaged plastic crap with a new earth tone logo on it that says it is “green”.

[/quote]

“I’m an expert in name-ology” - LOL thanks Skyzyks! I needed the laugh - of course, what does it say about me that the line from Boondock Saints was the first thing I thought of when I read your post - - -why, it says I am a freaking genius!

You’re absolutely right though - the only the AGW crowd has gotten this far is by making the common man believe the science proving AGW is too incrdible complex for the average person to even begin to understand. When the reality is that the data is very easy to understand, it is the “adjusted” computer models that are the “complex” part. The data doesn’t prove their theory, their theory is solely based on their own computer models only when they can use their “adjusted” data sets. Data sets that have been conveniently lost, somehow. The facts and actual scientific principles completely reject their theory - but don’t trust facts - just rely on their unproven, already incorrect computer models . . .no really, just trust them . . .

it’s like that time that I went naked snorkeling with the three ladies from my Bridge club and they insisted that they were all expert shark wranglers and they could teach me how to handle the fierciest most aggresive sharks as if they were docile little kittens. Well, I trusted them right up to the point where I was the only one going into the ocean while Marge was going to be the shark spotter from the bow and Gertrude was going to man the life preserver station in case I wa snot a good student and Meredith was going to holler directions to me from the stern . . .I got to thinking that something just ain’t right here . . . oh and it turned out that they weren’t shark experts and didn’t play Bridge, in fact, they were three big tough guys named Maurice, Vinne and Paco and they actually worked for Fast Frida and I owed her a lot of money for some interior decorating that I hadn’t done in her bed . . . oh and my feet were tied to a concrete block too . . . but the sharks were real enough and I got eaten . . .

the point of my HEAVILY SARCASTIC “wall of text” is that although the AGW crowd is actually something other than they pretend (“green is the new red”), and the facts they offer are not true, there are real dangers in the actions they want to implement, actions that will harm and kill a lot of people - a lot more than any supposed AGW.

97

[quote]Eli B wrote:

Not that a college degree is a requirement to be an educated person but, do you have one? In what field(s)?

Not that you couldn’t just make something up, but lets just say I’ll trust you.
[/quote]
Alright, I’m going to step in and take the bait on your strawman argument against IrishSteel here. I am an engineer with masters degree. I have experience writing and implementing computer models. I am an expert in air pollutant dispersion modeling. I am a CA state certified greenhouse gas auditor. I consult with my clients daily on GHG mitigation, strategy and trading issues. So let me say the following:

IrishSteel is right on. The link he provided from Lord Monckton is an excellent source detailing the problems with AGW theory. Those problems boil down to:

1- MASSIVE uncertainty and gaps in the temperature data itself
2- Biased and flawed computer models (which are the ENTIRE basis of the theory). The models were written with specific outcomes in mind. For instance, the infamous hockey stick model would produce the same curve no matter what data was used for input. Global temps = hockey stick. 1985 NL baseball scores = hockey stick. See the problem? Also, if the models were accurate, they would be able to predict the current climate state. None have made accurate predictions. This is not science, it is bullshit.
3- The HUGE assumption that a warmer climate would be worse for civilization. There is very powerful evidence that it would in fact be better, not the least of which is the fact that there are more deaths attributed to cold-related factors than heat-related each year.
4- The fact that even if the AGW people are right, stopping ALL fossil-fuel use would have an insignificant effect on the climate (less than 1 degree). Anthropogenic CO2 is less than 1% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

These are just a few of the problems. Please educate yourself beyond what you see on TV and fucking wikipedia.

98

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:
You know what on second thought, I just read through some of your other threads. Heres a telling quote from your very own self.

“thanks for interrupting our blissful ignorance with your smelly facts . . . go away or I shall taunt you a second time . . . .”

Nice.

Your entire post history tells me I will get not one single straight answer from you. When challenged you never back up your assertions. Your tactics are personal attacks and walls of text.[/quote]

He has given you sources, what more do you want.[/quote]

How about sources that don’t direct me to a website that looks like it was made with kid pix.

How about an attitude that shows your cup isn’t already full.

How about apologizing for criticizing the “tee huggers” and “nutjobs” when you fail to grasp basic scientific concepts like error bars.

Food for thought Johnny.

99

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
).[/quote]
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

Why would it have to massive, [/quote]

Well, what most scientists in literally dozens of fields have realized is that the environment is changing rapidly in many ways as a response to an increase in temperature. For instance, we know that birds are migrating later in the fall and sooner in the winter each year.

Hundreds of species populations and migratory patterns all show that the earth is warming. Therefore it’s not as simple as paying off a few climatologists to create some data, someone would literally be paying off thousands and thousands of scientists (including almost every major university in this country) to create data. It’s just practically unimaginable.

Short answer is that there is an abundance of data to support that GW is real. That doesn’t mean we know why though.[/quote]

Birds and Animals that are migratory depend on the length of day, not how hot it is.[/quote]
Sorry for the late response.

That is true, but like most things in nature, there are multiple factors that can affect animal behaviors. I’ll cite this study which shows that short distance migratory birds are reacting to changes in temp. I can also cite some evidence from a biology lecture I finished recently, I’ll see if i can dig it up.

http://www.biology.uco.edu/PersonalPages/CButler/IBI_1931.pdf

100

I posted a video and everything.