Response to Al "Chicken Little" Gore

[Bronk]

Aww did i hit a nerve. The 99.99% I was referring to are in fact.... wait for it...
Long time gov employees .

The appointee is a figurehead. You try and do anything when all who work for you actually work against you. On top of that it's almost impossible to fire the underlings.

So once again the article is moot.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Bronk
Aww did i hit a nerve. The 99.99% I was referring to are in fact.... wait for it...
Long time gov employees .

The appointee is a figurehead. You try and do anything when all who work for you actually work against you. On top of that it's almost impossible to fire the underlings.

So once again the article is moot.

hit a nerve.. naw, just smacked me in the funny bone. I wonder if you could please point out a government agency that is NOT staffed by long time govt. employees?

And moot is in the eyes of the beholder... you all seem to define "moot" as "anything that disagrees with me".



"I do not think it means what you think it means"

[Bronk]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I wonder if you could please point out a government agency that is NOT staffed by long time govt. employees?

 

I can't and this is why almost none of them can be believed.
 If your paycheck comes from "the need for more study", or "we need more people to monitor xxx" how bias is your information.

Bronk

Edit: MT I didn't mean for this to look like an attack on you. I just quoted you so I could make the point about the fed employee mind set.
If you choose to believe the study fine by me.
I on the other hand don't trust the SoBs.

[lazs2]

The EPA...

"Worse, Tulane's junk science survives in law. And EPA officials have stated that no changes in policy are forthcoming. So EPA will establish more onerous testing procedures, products will become more expensive or not available at all,and consumers will suffer. All for phantom protection from a nonexistent problem. "

This is from the cite that claims that science corrects itself... even it admits to the policy of the EPA..

The EPA thrives on crisis and junk science.   I have given examples with salt and thermal "pollution" there are many many others.

Bronk owned you... you admit that government agencies are staffed by long time government employees that can't be trusted.. yet... you go to their websites to view and quote their junk science as if it were the saints themselves come down to save us all.

Global warming is not caused by rising Co2 levels to any real extent and the biggest cause of global climate change is due mostly to changes in sun.

We can't make it hotter or cooler here no matter how hard we try.

We should not pollute to the point of destruction tho (everything added to something is pollution unless it is exactly the same composition and even then... it can be considered to be a change in volume which is.... pollution).

lazs

[midnight Target]

First of all..

"long time government employee" does not equal "can't be trusted" no matter how much you want to believe it.

But then you also think that an example of a mistake is the same as a global condemnation. hehehe... owned.

So the EPA can't be trusted... lets look elsewhere..

Joint science academies’ statement

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [2], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

US National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:

The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4]
The summary begins with:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)

American Meteorological Society

Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders.  

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.

Yea but... Michael Crichton says....

LOL

[Bronk]

MT who are the organizations listed funded by?

This is a serious question.






Bronk

[midnight Target]

I suppose either one of us could research that question, but more importantly... what kind of funding would you deem "acceptable"?

Admit it, the days of solving life's questions with a pencil and some scratch paper while working as a patent clerk are long over. Science requires money. That is a fact of life, but not a quid pro quo condemnation of science.

Don't get me wrong. Scientists aren't perfect little drones who wear halos and bow in the direction of Einstein's grave every day. I'm sure some are tempted to come to a conclusion that helps ensure food on the table for another year. But the cool thing is, science is not bound by the conclusions of one scientist. It is a systematic way of testing and concluding with the preponderance of evidence. Slackers will be exposed.. sooner or later.

So, the best we can do is look at the conclusions of as many groups as we can. The majority may not be right, but it is a pretty decent bet that they are.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by midnight Target
hit a nerve.. naw, just smacked me in the funny bone. I wonder if you could please point out a government agency that is NOT staffed by long time govt. employees?

Deparment of n00bs, lol:cool:

[Yeager]

So I get a call from my dear university educated licensed architect brother Ken down in Portland.  He says "you need to go see the movie (an inconvenient truth) and take your daughter too, she needs to see it" he says "she needs to learn the art of critical thinking".  I tell him "Shes pretty smart all on her own and I will see it when it comes out on DVD in a few weeks", he tells me Im "copping out" and I tell him "I dont feel like "driving 50 miles into Seattle to go see it in the only theater its playing in the state".

Then he goes on about the evil Christian fundamentalists, and I remind him about the evil muslim fundamentalists and he goes "yeah them too".  Then he tells me that "all couples should be limited to one child and everyone should be awarded carbon credits controlling the amount of pollution they make and controlling the amount of energy they can consume"......

I tell him in response "there will be radical environmental people that will tell you if you have two kids you need to get rid of one" and "thats all some people will need to create a violent revolt and then you quite simply have another reason for another war on your hands" then I tell him he is "preaching a radical form of fundamentalism, environmental fundamentalism" then he gets real quiet...says his wife just got home and he needs to go.  So I say "See you later bro"

Until next time, when Gore meets Bush

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Hangtime
I'll see yer "twaddle!" and raise..

POPPYCOCK!

I'll raise my poppycock, if I can see your bollocks!

[lukster]

Al Gore's movie will do nothing but make the doomsayers more shrill and the doubters more deaf.

[Dos Equis]

Originally posted by midnight Target
First of all..

"long time government employee" does not equal "can't be trusted" no matter how much you want to believe it.

But then you also think that an example of a mistake is the same as a global condemnation. hehehe... owned.

So the EPA can't be trusted... lets look elsewhere..

LOL

It doesn't matter MT, how many quotes or journals you bring out. Some people will say "show me one example", and then no matter what you show them - they will refute it. When you are dealing with people who bring with them the Exxon funded counterspin, and say things like the EPA are just green wackos, then you are dealing with dittohead wingnuts. You can't reason with them.

I've figured that out and moved on. So have a lot of other people. These forums have a certain demographic that seems to prevail. Best stick to playing AH and let them have their Gore and Hillary jokes, while they bury their head about climate change and miss all the economic opportunities around exploring alternative fuels.

[lazs2]

Ok MT... so most of the scientific communities belive that man by his existence has some influence on the environment and climactic change.

Gee... so do I.  How could we not?  My cat has some effect.  Me taking a cup of water out of the lake has some effect on it's level.

Now...  not one of the groups you quoted can tell us how much or... even what we should do about it or.... how much it will help if we all just disapeared.

They can't tell us what day the earth will be destroyed by global warming or even if it will be or... if we will or won't enter a period of global cooling no matter what we do.

All they can really say is that, IF Co2 is a cause of global warming then if Co2 levels double....DOUBLE then tempretures will rise maybe 1 degree in  One Hudred frigging years...

Now... of that doubling.... man will contribute about 2-4%  That is... if everything else stays really really stable and nature doesn't belch or we somehow come up with power sources more advanced than a coal fired powerplant or a 2006 honda civic in the next 100 frigging years!

So... none of em can tell us what we can do that will positively change the nature of climactic change much less how much difference it will make in the natural climactic cycles.

What would you have us do and how much will it change things?

You see the problem?  No one can do anything but make computer models based on a stable nature and a stable mankind and a stable sun that would stay that way for 100 years.

What kind of "scientist" would make predictions based on that kind of thinking?

Oh... that's easy.... non of em... they are all full of "appears" and "might" and "believe" and that sort of thing.

One thing more sure than the sun or rising C02 tho..... they all got their hand out for more..

lazs

[lukster]

Originally posted by Dos Equis
It doesn't matter MT, how many quotes or journals you bring out. Some people will say "show me one example", and then no matter what you show them - they will refute it. When you are dealing with people who bring with them the Exxon funded counterspin, and say things like the EPA are just green wackos, then you are dealing with dittohead wingnuts. You can't reason with them.

I've figured that out and moved on. So have a lot of other people. These forums have a certain demographic that seems to prevail. Best stick to playing AH and let them have their Gore and Hillary jokes, while they bury their head about climate change and miss all the economic opportunities around exploring alternative fuels.

Maybe now we're getting somewhere. You guys feel free to believe what you want. Practice your religion or "science" however you want. Just stop the proselytizing, or not. guess you have that right.

[lazs2]

Yep... nothing wrong with "exploring alternative fuels"  that is the way it should be.

As new tech comes on board, alternatives will be explored by the free market.

Solar cells have gone from 100's of dollars a KW to cents over the decades as energy prices rise.... And... all without scientists forming a kyoto and mandating it or pointing out a world ending global disaster.

Cars have doubled in comfort and efficiency over the decades due to demand...  hybrids and electric cars were researched and developed with private money in order to meet a demand.

In the meantime... governments have created nothing except sink holes for tax money.  They have slowed/stoped  the building of nuke power plants.... they have stopped the exploration of oil to make us less dependent on foriegn oil...  They have mandated junk science environmental laws that have often caused grave harm to the environment or... done nothing... they have created endangered species lists that are 90% insects.

Nope... the free market will take tech as fast and as far as it can go much better without government intervention and it will do it because it is fueled by demand not by mandate.

And that is what global warming scare tactics are all about.... make the situation seem so grave that only the government can save us....

The "opportunities" are in reality.... the fleecing of the sheep.

lazs