Conservatives and climate change

[lomiller]

By the way, why is this a politcal (or even sometimes religious) issue at all?

There is no scientific debate over the fact that humans are warming the planet with greenhouse gasses at a rate of 2-4.5 Deg C per doubling of CO2. The debate that actually takes place is ENTIRLY political.

 

[DC]

Regardless of the fact that you are ridiculing the man for his religion, of you and him, he is the one that has consideration for the bad effects of your beliefs on people.

The effect of higher energy costs with a limited household budget.

Those things.

Well I won't bother you with them. You are busy. Saving the World.

Continue.

His religion is based on a fantasy novel from the bronze age and has harmed so many people to this very day.
my understanding of AGW is based on science.
and not acting on an observed problem will most likely harm much more people than losing some jobs in coal mines. you know, coal mines are harming people.
coal is so bronze age.

 

[lomiller]

I disagree, but I am biased by my rather extensive prior history of discussing these issues with the one who labels himself "Furcifer." If anything I consider MHaze to be less disingenuous and more intellectually honest and consistent to his beliefs and positions on this topic, but this is a subjective consideration and for the most part,

Subjective yes, but I do agree with your assessment

 

[mhaze]

Agreed on both points.

Good Vaudeville acts depended on timing and being in tune with the audiences perceptions and understandings. For the most part, vaudeville acts are both humorous and entertaining.

YES! Here YA'go!

briffa_sep_98_d.pro,
.....
yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
......​

BWAHAHAHAHA!

HEY I LIKES MAKING UP STUFF LIKE "valadj"...

Cool!!!

 

[DC]

YES! Here YA'go!

briffa_sep_98_d.pro,
.....
yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
......​

BWAHAHAHAHA!

HEY I LIKES MAKING UP STUFF LIKE "valadj"...

Cool!!!

no need to demonstrate your ignorance, we are well aware of that.

 

[mhaze]

His religion is based on a fantasy novel from the bronze age and has harmed so many people to this very day.
my understanding of AGW is based on science.
and not acting on an observed problem will most likely harm much more people than losing some jobs in coal mines. you know, coal mines are harming people.
coal is so bronze age.

I'll repeat an earlier comment. With $1M dollars, I could save 5000 lives. Today. Real People.

You? You'd spend it chasing fantasies. Your FANTASY OF THE AGW. And that's my point. His concern was about people's actual welfare. So is mine. Yours?

I'll let you justify your position.

PS: I've already stated mine in the position paper "Squash Snail Darters".

 

[Trakar]

Actually, on numerous occasional "skeptics of AGW" have debated True Believers.

I think the skeptics always win.

http://freedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/07/iq-squared-global-warming-debate.html

In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

Regardless of your personal biases and perceptions the poll indicates quite the opposite summation:

agreement increased after the debate 30% -> 46% - an increase of 53%
undecided stayed roughly the same 13% -> 12% - a decrease of 8%
disagreement decreased 57% -> 42% - a decrease of 24%

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into such surveys, but if you are going to try and use such to support an assertion, the results should at the least support your assertion. Prior to the debate, the audience was disbelieving of AGW by a ratio of almost 2-1, after the debate the audience supported AGW by convincing majority.

 

[Trakar]

YES! Here YA'go!

briffa_sep_98_d.pro,
.....
yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
......​

BWAHAHAHAHA!

HEY I LIKES MAKING UP STUFF LIKE "valadj"...

Cool!!!

Only a true denier could dunk his head into the blogorrhea cesspool and pop up smiling and triumphantly proclaiming that the "BabyRuth" he was eating tasted just like a fresh apple,...at least you are consistent.

 

[DC]

I'll repeat an earlier comment. With $1M dollars, I could save 5000 lives. Today. Real People.

You? You'd spend it chasing fantasies. Your FANTASY OF THE AGW. And that's my point. His concern was about people's actual welfare. So is mine. Yours?

I'll let you justify your position.

PS: I've already stated mine in the position paper "Squash Snail Darters".

makes no sense debating it with you as you call scinetific facts "fantasies".
we could have a debate when you are back in reality, if ever.

and sofar my personal action to reduce my CO² footprint has saved me alot of money. Turns out Public transportation is alot cheaper than having a car.

 

[DC]

Actually, on numerous occasions "skeptics of AGW" have debated True Believers.

I think the skeptics always win.

http://freedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/07/iq-squared-global-warming-debate.html

In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

Your Most Holy Gore, he refuses to debate. That's the smart thing to do. Stick with the Faith, do not let it be questioned or besmirched with seeds of doubt.

im happy Gore refuses to debate. he is a twat.

but anyway. seems like your religion is not doing too well here in Europe. Maybe its time to build a CATO church here in europe so you can spread the gospels more effectively maybe a reformation of the Luntz Bible might do it also.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_372_en.pdf

Altogether 89% see climate change as a serious problem, with 68% considering it a
very serious problem (up from 64% in 2009). On a scale of 1 (least) to 10 (most),
Europeans rank the seriousness of climate change at 7.4 (against 7.1 in 2009).

 

[johnny karate]

Regardless of the fact that you are ridiculing the man for his religion...

It's a curious cognitive dissonance to repeatedly use the term "religion" in a derogatory manner to describe proponents of AGW, and yet take umbrage at the mockery of someone's actual religion.

 

[BenBurch]

YES! Here YA'go!

briffa_sep_98_d.pro,
.....
yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
......​

BWAHAHAHAHA!

HEY I LIKES MAKING UP STUFF LIKE "valadj"...

Cool!!!

Idiots take code they don't comprehend out of context and you think they were correct in doing so? Do you comprehend it? Or are you taking something you don't comprehend out of context, too?

 

[Furcifer]

Furcifer - I'm not following.
The above tells me you don't think the issue is political. Then you post this? (bolding mine)

I suppose she was screaming "No", but her body language "told you" otherwise?

Science rarely if ever has "issues". It presents the facts as they are or as we know them to be. There shouldn't ever be an "issue" with science. The last time science had issues I believe it was with the church. That didn't turn out well for the church.

 

[Furcifer]

True, there are degrees of madness. Some people posting in this thread are clearly suffering from something. As for Furcifer, I think his issue is a rabid contrarianism - the need to feel special by going against the main stream, a very common thing in my experience. I think he realizes that AGW is real, and even that the situation is becoming dire. The problem for Furcifer is that he's apparently too proud to back down when his assertions are shown to be full of crap.

Right, because people discussing climate change are so open to alternate views.

The article you linked earlier is another politically biased diatribe full of the same innuendos and hyperbole that "the other side" engages in.

Blaming lobbyists for "the denial machine"? lol, and how much money did Exxon put into Chinese lobbyists pockets to get China to back out of Kyoto?

Claiming Clinton did try to push Kyoto through because he knew it was a losing battle? lol, his mouth wrote checks the country couldn't possibly cash because he knew it wouldn't be ratified.

Forgive me if I want to stay well away from the political nonsense and just read my climate science in peace for the time being.

 

[DavidJames]

I suppose she was screaming "No", but her body language "told you" otherwise?

Science rarely if ever has "issues". It presents the facts as they are or as we know them to be. There shouldn't ever be an "issue" with science. The last time science had issues I believe it was with the church. That didn't turn out well for the church.

indeed - I guess I was expecting some clarification. I guess I was expecting to much.

Continue with your smugness. I won't bother anymore.

 

[jj]

Blaming lobbyists for "the denial machine"? lol, and how much money did Exxon put into Chinese lobbyists pockets to get China to back out of Kyoto?

Shuffling the gaolposts any here, Furcifer? Yeah, I'd say so.

I will repeat this:

Can you, in any way, shape, or form, disprove the testable, verifiable measurements of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, or their testable, verifiable effects on IR vs. wavelength.

Just yes or no. That's all you need to say, you can leave the insults and the evasions, stop with your politics, and just answer the question.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

im a huge fan of Wikipedia¹, i have no problem with people, even scientists using wikipedia, it is a very good website, especially as it contains dirct links to sources that usualy backup the claims made. sure there are some articles that are junk, but they don't last long². but i was more thinking that you would have trouble with the dishonesty of plagiarism³.

1. Me, too. A friend of mine is up to 50 or so articles (Plant taxonomy). A Math professor opened an article on Jordan Normal form. He recommended to me an article on Group Rings. For partisan material, it's iffy.
2. That depends on the editors.
3. I don't know. One innocent interpretation: if someone uses Wikipedia for background and then writes for publication, it's quite possible that the publication would exhibit some parallel structure. Some people at Wikipedia are AGW partisans, so it might not take much to get them to make the accusation. It's a grey area.

Does the presumed Wikipedia ancestry enhance or degrade the credibility of the Wegman, Said, Scott social network analysis?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The most bothersome aspect of the climate discussion is the close connection between political orientation and acceptance or rejection of the theory. If astronomers predict a reasonable chance (greater than, say, 0.01) that a specific asteroid of diameter greater than, say, 300 m. will impact the Earth in, say, ten years, programs to address the threat will find support across the political spectrum. It's partly the perceived uncertainty of climate science AND the stridency of proponents (including rhetorical style) that fosters suspicion on the part of skeptics, seems to me. Steven Schneider went from recommending action against an impending Ice Age to recommending action against global warming. Sad that he was so indifferent to irony. Climate predictions are rife with uncertainty. To the self-aware, that should counsel tolerance. It does not seem to.
Richard Alley spoke at the UH. During the Q&A, in response to a question about biological sequestration by fertilization of tropical ocean deserts, as an alternative to wrenching economic change, he dismissed the suggestion on the grounds that this would buy no more than 200 years. That's a lot of time to find a better solution. Why impoverish today's population for uncertain science when, even if the threat is real, there's a less disruptive stop-gap?

 

[jj]

I think they're all saying "it's just a public policy difference"...

 

[Sceptic-PK]

The most bothersome aspect of the climate discussion is the close connection between political orientation and acceptance or rejection of the theory.

Yes, it goes something like this:

Climate “Skeptics” : Extreme conservatives/right wingers.
Those that accept the evidence & opinion of scientists: The rest of the political spectrum.