Redstate

And yes the AGW should remember the old adage about people who live in glass houses (would that be a greenhouse?) not throwing stones.

I thought I was on a different thread. My apologies 29Victor.

No harm done, I think I did get blamed there for a bit.

Just like the Reverend Gore and his High Church of Global Warming is doing right now!

Oh NOES! The poor polar bears! Something must be DONE!

Those college educated Republicans had enough sense to see through the liberal/communist bullcrap being spouted by their professors and actually, I don't know, learned something in college.

And I bet if you did an informal poll this weekend at your local college's frat parties, I doubt you'd find too many McCain supporters getting plastered and making idiots of themselves...

And I bet if you did an informal poll this weekend at your local college's frat parties, I doubt you'd find too many McCain supporters getting plastered and making idiots of themselves...

Hmmm, I think you just described my entire college experience...

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

Virtually no non-science, save a couple on US history, introductory law, and the Supreme Court [Edit: But I guess that doesn't count because Caltech isn't politicized enough with a radical left feminist/racist studies faculty to balance out all those pesky facts].

HTML Help for Red Staters

MS in ME, way back in '55. It was an humbling experience!

Leftists NEVER take real science classes (science classes that involve use of Calculus level math or higher). The range of people in real science/engineering courses seemed to range from Center-Left to Right. I can't think of a single classmate who was to the left of Hillary Clinton.

Scientists tend to lean left. (Esp Academic Scientists: Frustration over their perceived excess intelligence not translating into tangible wealth seems the cause).

With the Engineers the fact they have to solve problems that actually matter to other people seems to tilt them right. There is of course the counter influence of dealing with the really inept that will tilt them back left.

I live in Seattle, the great bastion of software engineering, and the software engineers around here are liberal as heck to the point that I've never once let my political leanings slip in a professional setting for literal fear of it impacting my career.

Now other kinds of engineers (electrical engineers such as power systems and control systems guys) they all tend to be a bit more conservative. But then again they all tend to be the best and brightest from India, China, Egypt, who had to work their tails off to get here.

Still, my personal work experience aside (I mean come on what does one expect from Seattle), I would think that in general your correlation between people who took high-level math (e.g. hard stuff) and conservatism is a pretty good bet.

you have to factor in social engineering as well.

http://hillbillypolitics.com

You took my comment, dpayton :) I was going to invoke Godwin's Law on the enviro-wackos and end the debate once and for all :)

Brian

Godwin's Law is descriptive, not proscriptive.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I love this bit. I had to find the whole clip.

It's awesome, but recorded at the wrong aspect ratio or something.

But it looks good in preview...hmmmm.

references into everything!

You have white coats, and models, and papers, and equations, and conferences... everything but the testing of theory that lies at the core of how science works.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Mostly for referencing cargo cults. I have not seen/heard anyone do that since about 2000.

Please sign Newt's Drilling Petition. I have included a link to it in the below. Thank you.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

They have one small set of facts.
(1) Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere
(2) Carbon dioxide is a (weak) greenhouse gas

And from that they extrapolate the most ridiculous scenarios.

They ignore the fact that ice core samples show that carbon is a lagging indicator of climate change

They ignore the fact that carbon dioxide and slightly warmer temperatures would be a godsend for food production to a hungry world.

They ignore or downplay the much larger roll of sun warmth.

It's not any sort of science at all, it's an outright lie.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Hah! Like the "doctors" in lab coats with the mirror on the forehead that used to tell us our T-zones would be best satisfied if we only smoked Camels.

Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!

There *can't* be any. Humanity hasn't been around long enough, with the technology long enough, to take the measruements needed to do it.

So shill for Al Gore's "credits" scam all you want, but know that that's what you're doing. I hope he's giving you your cut though, because it's pretty silly to be doing it for free.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I'm not sure exactly what you mean to say, but for the sake of argument I'll assume that you mean that we've only been able to take direct samples of surface temperatures for the past few decades.

That is true. However, that isn't our only way to reconstruct a reliable record of past temperatures.

Borehole readings can establish a temperature record for the past 500 years. Using this method we can see that temperatures have not been consistently this high as far back as this method allows us to look. To learn more about the borehole record, please read:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html

Going further back, we can use proxy data, such as tree rings, ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites, and others.

This also establishes a warming trend, with data reaching back up to 1,000 years.

To read more about proxy data, please read:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

Other methods allow us to go even further back.

So, as you can see, a variety of avenues of research have allowed us to construct a long term temperature record.

This, of course, isn't surprising. Many branches of science routinely gather data on global conditions far into the past - examples include our magnetic field, ocean levels, the position of the continents, and the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the surface.

Someone does this every couple of months.

and the fact that he hasn't answered proves it. These people know that these methods aren't verifiable. They are no more accurate than throwing darts at a dart-board.

I don't know where to start with this. It's hard to have a real debate with one line drive-by comments.

I'm going to assume, based on:

"Is borehole temperature evidence verifiable"

That this is what we're discussing.

I'm also going to assume that what you mean is:

"We have, another, more reliable record of climate over roughly the past 500 years - the time range that boreholes cover - that contradicts borehole data."

What is this?

If you want to share some information about this competing method, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, you're just making unsupported statements.

In addition, I'll point out that borehole data is just one of a wide range of reliable information sources on past climate.

Precisely what actions would you, as Emperor, take to reduce CO2 emissions in the US, what would the cost to our economy be and what impact would it have.

Note: you have to be specific. Things like "ban cars that get less than 40mpg" or "build 500 nuclear power plants and scrap the fuel fired ones" are acceptable solutions because the are specific. Touchy feely answers like "reduce emissions to 1941 levels don't count because you don't tell us how to get there. And don't forget the cost estimate, both in terms of out of pocket dollars and the longterm economic impact.

Now, put up or shut up. Thanks either way.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I think this is where a real, valid debate can be had.

As you've seen, I'll argue strongly for the existence of human caused global warming. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.

Now the question of how to deal with it is something that reasonable people can disagree over and have a genuine discussion about.

Since you ask, I'll tell you what I feel is the right way to handle this.

I'm not really interested in answering the king-for-a-day scenario, because that doesn't really map to any real policy choices.

If I was president for a day, however, I would introduce and champion carbon tax legislation, with all proceeds from the carbon tax being returned to the taxpayers as a dividend, to the total tax burden would not increase.

I prefer this over a cap and trade system, because I believe the cap and trade system is more vulnerable to political interference in the allocation of carbon allowances. We've seen the Europeans having this problem.

Cap and trade worked well for the SO2 problem, but the CO2 emission spectrum is too diffuse for this system, in my opinion.

I would also work to make the carbon tax system a multilateral agreement on an international level, including the Europeans, the Chinese, the Indians, etc.

I'd also direct more federal research dollars into next generation nuclear reactor designs and battery research.

Tall order? Yes? Achievable? I believe so. The fact that both presidential candidates support carbon legislation is a good sign.

that you can't read.

You avoided, on purpose I'd guess the part about the cost. As in the ECONOMIC IMPACT to the US economy.

Second, what will the net impact on climate be. Crickets chirping.

Let me be really clear (most everyone not of lefty persuasion will get this, I doubt you will). I don't give a damn about what you "feel". We shouldn't be doing anything that might have a negative impact on the economy based on "feelings". You make policy based on fact (and AGW ain't fact) and based reasonable assumptions drawn from said facts.

Now then, cost? Impact based on what assumptions?

Also, just how do you plan to convince the elected members of your party that nuclear energy is a good thing?

As I said earlier, put up or shut up. Right now,
I'm voting for shut up.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I was going to go for full out disembowel but decided to pull the reply out of sympathy for the differently abled.

I'm interested in having a mature discussion. You're starting to have a temper tantrum. I write respectfully, and I expect to the same treatment. If you can't handle it, this is my last reply to your thread.

Now, to answer your points.

I most certainly did not dodge the issue of cost. I proposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Revenue neutral means the additional taxation would be zero. That is the cost. If you don't believe me, I invite you to read an informative report advocating the same position from the American Enterprise Institute - which is, by the way, a conservative think tank:

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26286/pub_detail.asp

Secondly, I've spent quite a bit of time already this evening sharing a great deal of scientific information on global warming. Those are not "feelings". That is "proof", so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I apologize, but I don't know what AGW stands for. If you define it, we can continue on that point.

Thirdly, what is the effect? The goal is to reduce global CO2 levels to
between between 445ppm and 535ppm. I assume you know that a carbon tax, unlike a cap and trade system, is a bottom-up approach, and does not specify specific targets. That is why it's a more robust system - it depends less on central control.

It's interesting to me that you assume I'm a Democrat. As I've mentioned, both George W Bush and John McCain agree with me that global warming is a real, man-made phenomenon. Why are you trying to make this a left-right issue? I never brought that up.

You are advocating increasing it.

you are the worst advocate of this cause we have ever had on this site.

for the Pittsburgh Steeler fans.

What is the effect of your little tax scheme on the economy and on the climate?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

because they are already putting out more than we are and by 2030 will be emitting more than the entire world does currently.

Getting India to agree would be interesting as well (Seeing as they are on a path to overtake us)

BTW did you actually think this through ?

Because if you return the full amount of the Tax to the purchaser it has zero effect. (Think of a rebate.

If you return it preferentially you have created a regressive tax on those that have to travel for a living. You have increased the cost of goods that have to be transported and shut down sectors of our economy.

You did work that out before you decided to publish this here didn't you ?

Again, I invite you to read the American Enterprise report that I posted above, which should answer your questions.

Parenthetically, I'd also say this. We have a moral obligation to fix a problem that we're contributing to. That's the first thing. Then we can get China and India to the table. But when you're in a hole that you dug, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Secondly, you're confusing energy with fossil fuel derived energy. They aren't the same. Just because we need to de-carbonize our energy supply absolutely does not mean that we have to stop using energy or cripple our standard of living.

Naive? Not really. And the example is staring us in the face. After the first oil shock in the 70s, both France and Japan took major steps to reduce fossil fuel use by aggressively rolling out nuclear energy. Neither of their economies collapsed. Neither of them returned to the stone age. In fact, France is a net exporter of electricity, and enjoys some of the lowest electricity rates in Europe.

So yes, you can have your cake and eat it too.

Their Kyoto commitments.

Japan doesn't seem to have bothered to make an effort.

So it seems that no you can't.

BTW before accusing someone of being confused it would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Fossil fuels are cheap energy. Even writing down the cost of the initial change over (10 trillion plus dollars) the other forms are considerably more expensive. So not only don't you get to have your cake you won't ever be able to afford it again.

I don't recall coming out in favor of Kyoto.

Thank you again for not reading my posts.

Plus, Kyoto legislated a percentage reduction under a country's baseline emissions. So that doesn't say really have anything to say about how CO2-efficient the country already was.

So you're not really bringing anything to the table, here. Thanks again for proving my point.

No one argues that fossil fuels are cheap. Another straw man.

But so is nuclear. Again, the French are an example that you're not inviting economic apocalypse by moving away from carbon.

earth temp for

liberty?
equality?
maximum happiness pursuits?

What is the #1 cause of death of the homeless?

These are serious questions.

More

Before man walked the earth, much less before SUVs rolled same, nature managed to warm the globe so much that half of NC and SC were under the Atlantic.

Yes, when I fart or breathe, I warm the Earth.

Answer the questions or you will be stalked.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

"What is the #1 cause of death of the homeless?"

I think it is freezing to death in the winter, but I could be wrong.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

There is no way (barring time travel) to accurately measure past temperatures without a level of guesswork. That, to me, disqualifies the evidence when pushing for policy discussions. I really don't buy any argument that these guesses are 95% (or whatever percentage they claim to be) confident. I say they are next to nil because they are not verifiable. They have not been observed. They have been extrapolated.

Do you disqualify the evidence for astronomy because, barring time travel, there is no way to accurately measure the past state of the universe?

Do you disqualify the evidence for geology because, barring time travel, there is no way to accurately measure the past state of the earth?

Do you disqualify the evidence for archeology because, barring time travel, there is no way to accurately measure the past state of human society?

The past state of the universe.

When we look at the light from distant objects we are peering into the past.

You look at Andromeda you are looking a million years into the past.

You look at quasars you are looking billions of years into the past.

OOPS.

Two out of three isn't bad on the first pass. Now, to help you with astronomy. You realize, of course, that astronomers also study our solar system. The whole light speed thing doesn't really apply there on a scale that helps you win your argument.

Oops.

And you just proved my point on ice cores. Ice cores are a direct measurement of the past state of the earth's climate.

Double oops.

Plus, Joliphant, I'd appreciate it if we can discuss things like adults as opposed to snarky 13 year olds. It makes me take you much less seriously.

The past is still the past, whether it is the 8 minutes we peer back in time to look at the sun or the hours we peer into the past to look at the outer planets.

Second: JUST WHAT POINT ABOUT ICE CORES AM I PROVING ???? THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE MENTIONED THEM AND YOU HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING

Well that is about all fun I can stand for one evening.

Shame though it's not often we get someone who knows so little about the field they chose to argue about.

You switched it up this time by repeating something I already took care of *first*, *then* insulting me. Thanks for keeping it fresh.

I mentioned boreholes and ice cores in the first post I made. The first one. Thank you for showing that you don't read my posts.

Here's another link. Repeated for you. Again. Joliphant.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html

did you subscribe to the theory of Global Cooling?

Just curious.

Wasn't involved in that debate.

opposite conclusion 30 years ago?

State of the art climate models that predicted the exact opposite conclusions of the current models?

When is the last time a scientific theory was 100% wrong?

Kind of makes you question the "scientific" nature of the theory, doesn't it?

How's that for a proxy?

I dispute your statement.

Here's my evidence:

"But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooli...

Where is your evidence?

published articles on each position?

The fact that scientific articles are diametrically opposed to each other makes my point.

It is rare that scientific theories are opposite of each other.

Some say the universe came to being in a big bang and is expanding.

Others say the universe has always been.

Virtually nobody says the universe is contracting.

When it comes to climate, there are people on both sides of the issue---cooling and warming.

AGW is less established than the Big Bang, and thats pretty much on the "decent guess" shelf of scientific theories.

You claimed that climate theories were "100%" wrong in the past.

I showed you that wasn't true.

Now we're talking about the big bang?

What?

It's incorrect to say there there are people on both sides of the issue.

That implies equality.

It is correct to say that a large majority of scientific opinion agrees that human caused global warming is a real problem.

Given that, the risks of doing nothing, and the manageable costs of doing *something* - that would also, by the way, get us off foreign oil - I think there is a strong argument for action.

An example I would do well to emulate.

Your first post makes no mention of Ice Cores unless you consider other as being the same as Ice cores.

As to insulting you. Its not an Insult.

So far you have been wrong on
1. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
2. The Nature of five sciences.
3. The warmest year on record.
4. The predictions of global warming models.
5. The nature of logical argument.

And to use your quaint rubric OTHER!

Is there anything new here? I'm not going to repeat my knockdowns of your points for the third, fourth, or fifth time.

Let me know when you have something new.

Read the thread.

"Two out of three isn't bad on the first pass."

I have worked in a several school systems in two different states, and to be blunt 67% to 68% correct has always been an F.

because the arguments are based on feelings and pronouncements of doom not on even remotely provable fact.

No model can replicate history in any reasonable way, let alone make a reliable projection. None. Not one. No one can explain the current anomolies like the fact (note: FACT) that the earth has been cooling since 1998. Or that the oceans are cooling and the recently measured ocean temps run 100% contrary to what the models and the AGW proponents have been squalling about.

AGW arguments don't hold water. They are crap. If you believe them you are either a fool or an idiot. I opt for both.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"No model can replicate history in any reasonable way, let alone make a reliable projection."

Already handled.

"No one can explain the current anomolies like the fact (note: FACT) that the earth has been cooling since 1998."

False. A red herring and a cherry pick attempt. First, NASA reports that 2005 was the warmest year on record:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

Second, as I'm sure you well know, 1998 was a strong El Nino year, which boosted temperatures. So it's not representative.

Third, you don't seem to understand statistics. The claim is that there is a trend to increasing average global temperatures. That is different than saying that every year will be hotter than the last. No one is arguing that.

If the first day of spring is colder than the last day of winter, does that mean spring is colder than winter? By your logic, it would.

As to the rest, topic is average global temperatures. No more red herrings, please.

Redstate1546 - I, for one, certainly appreciate your attempt to bring in evidence to argue for your points. As you can tell however, I don't think you'll find a particularly warm crowd for that here, at least with respect to global warming.

I appreciate that.

I welcome a mature debate. That's what I enjoy.

In science you make a prediction, and you test it.

When you're on the globowarmo gravy train, you get paid to make declarations without testing a single thing. Negative results are not asked for or wanted, because those threaten the gravy train that keeps Al Gore so well off.

HTML Help for Red Staters

What would you consider to some "tests" that could be done. I'm not sure what your definition of the term is as it relates to this field. Let me know and we can continue to debate.

The theory must make a prediction, such that an experiment can be run, where the experiment's results could either confirm or falsify the theory.

And I mean a real live experiment, not a computer simulation.

HTML Help for Red Staters

You simply don't understand the scientific method. Science isn't always like your high school lab. See my other posts. Do you run experiments in astronomy? Do you run experiments in geology? Do you run experiments in archeology?

Astronomy and astrophysics experiments can and have been run. That you don't know about them suggests to me that I'm the better informed about science of the two of us here.

I can think of four right off the top of my head:

- Water tanks in mountains to try to detect particles

- Scanning the entire observable universe to check if the background radiation is uniform

- Watching stars behind the sun during an eclipse for gravitational lensing

- Measuring the orbit of Mercury for relativistic deviations from classical mechanical predictions

And I'm sure there are others, related to supernovae and other rare events.

Some science requires a great deal of patience, and must be conducted over lifetimes. I have to think that climate science is one of those.

So I refuse to be bullied by cargo cultists who demand instant, world-changing reactions to untested theory.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Which is deeply silly, of course.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

He knows where I live, and I think he has a whip or something.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

AK.

Moe, better watch out :-)

You just defined "experiment" as "observing a natural system, gathering data, and making predictions"

Which is exactly what global warming's science is based on.

Thank you.

Astronomers can measure past data because it takes the light a long timeto get here.

Climatologists lack that luxury.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Proxies are riddled with assumptions that we cannot test.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Please define what you mean by "proxy", and show how the use of proxies is not, in fact, widespread throughout science.

And again, thanks for letting the light thing prove my point yet again. Astronomers regularly use light as a proxy. Example - using the spectra of light emitted from a star or planet as a proxy to determine it's elemental makeup.

We can create absorption spectra effects in the lab in minutes. We can't create the effects that are mueasured in tree rings and ice cores and such that are the backbone of GW theory.

And note that even in astronomy proxies are called into question. Read up on the debates over red shifts and the Hubble constant sometime, to find out how the granddaddy of astronomical proxies may be bunk.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Using your own examples, you can certainly compare tree rings and ice cores to known data of recent temperatures.

Next.

So.. wrong.

It's the same problem the Hubble constant has: Under some theories it goes out the window as a way to get distance from recession speed, because as the geometry of the universe changes over time, so too does H nought.

HTML Help for Red Staters

A spectral analysis is a direct measurement/observation using a framework that has been dispositively proven on earth. Nothing in AGW approaches that level of precision or predictability.

AGW models are not the equivalent of carbon dating or spectral analysis.

At best AGW models are like gravitons or tachyons, theoretical constructs that based on some intuitions of the universe but incapable of being verified.

Please see my previous post on hindcasting.

Plus, no one is saying that the theory is 100% proven. That's a straw man. Scientists are saying that there's enough evidence to be concerned enough to change our behavior, given the data available, the magnitude of the risks, and the cost of making changes.

My point is that AGW is indistinguishable from statistical noise.

The temperature is always changing. keep flipping a coin over and over, and there will be strings of consecutive heads and consecutive tails.

Doesn't mean that there is a meaningful trend.

Do you have evidence that the data is no different than statistical noise? I'd like to see it.

How else do you propose testing climate models other than testing them on past data? Answer - there is no other way. And you know it. It's a false argument.

My friggin graphing calculator from highschool can do regression equations on past data. That's called a good guess of the future, not proof, not anything else. I'm not about to ask the free world to gather berries for the rest of their lives because my TI-82 said so.

Real science predicts the future, and is verified or discredited by the results. Until you do that, you aren't using the scientific method.

"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"

don't know how I got myself here. I'm going back to

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2008/jun/19/overflow_blog_for_eri...

"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"

If you can't even state the debate correctly how do you expect to make your point ??

The hypothesis is that mankind is causing the climate to warm and further this is a bad thing.

Your statement is that the climate is changing and warming.

They aren't the same and proving the later does not make your points about the former.

I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make. Perhaps you can help me to understand.

"The hypothesis is that mankind is causing the climate to warm and further this is a bad thing."

I think the hypothesis is:

1. Amospheric levels of CO2 are rising, causing the planet to warm.
2. Human beings are responsible to the increased levels of atmospheric CO2.
3. The effects of warmer global temperatures are, on the whole, more of a bad thing than a good thing for humanity.

Which of these points do you feel are unsupported? Let me know and we can continue the discussion.