Quote :

"I stated a fact that there is no proof that warmer temperatures will indeed have a negative impact on this planet."

seriously?

3/8/2009 3:11:46 PM

Quote :

"Fully 97% of the climate scientists who regularly publish on climate change agreed with the statement, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"."

How convenient that's the people who regularly publish on it that agree with that statement. What a bullshit statistic. I wonder if they even bothered to poll those who would like to publish against AGW who are denied solely based on their stance. Probably not.

And, it's convenient, Hur, how you have shirked away from you claim about the anti-AGW people being the ones denying science. Especially in light of the proof I gave you to the contrary.

Quote :

"you are delusional and all i am seeing is blah blah blah from your post above."

Every bit of what I posted is fact. Simply look it up. Hell, look up the Wegman report, as that is where most of those facts come from.

3/8/2009 7:44:56 PM

Quote :

"I wonder if they even bothered to poll those who would like to publish against AGW "

They comprise the 3% who disagree.

3/8/2009 8:25:10 PM

false. If you don't get published, then it would stand to reason that you weren't polled. durrrrrr. that's why I took issue with the statistic. Reading is fundamental.

3/8/2009 8:27:10 PM

and that's what the peer review process is for... to weed out the articles with poor science.

3/8/2009 11:14:35 PM

Quote :

"I stated a fact that there is no proof that warmer temperatures will indeed have a negative impact on this planet."

Is the stupid stronger than usual tonight, or am I just in a bad mood?

Quote :

"How convenient that's the people who regularly publish on it that agree with that statement. What a bullshit statistic."

Scientists who publish on climate science, you'd think would be publishing AGAINST the idea that statement if they had any evidence that allowed them to do so. God, sometimes, you people make my heart hurt.

[Edited on March 8, 2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason : ,]

3/8/2009 11:22:50 PM

It isn't just you. Idiocy puts all of us with rational thinking skills in a bad mood.

3/8/2009 11:35:55 PM

Quote :

"and that's what the peer review process is for... to weed out the articles with poor science."

I guess that must be why so much of the AGW articles aren't really peer reviewed. And, honestly, it's not peer-review which is keeping out anti-AGW articles. it's editors who don't agree with it.

Quote :

"Scientists who publish on climate science, you'd think would be publishing AGAINST the idea that statement if they had any evidence that allowed them to do so."

Again, ONLY if the journals allow their articles in IN THE FIRST PLACE, which they don't. it's been fairly well documented that anti-AGW articles never have a chance. Besides, why place the burden of evidence on anti-AGW when it's never existed for pro-AGW?

3/9/2009 8:12:58 AM

Quote :

"Scientists who publish on climate science, you'd think would be publishing AGAINST the idea that statement if they had any evidence that allowed them to do so"

hey man the climatologists and PhD's in meterology are all a part of the liberal socialist conspiracy who spawned global warming
as a sneaky evil way to pass along the leftist agenda by force feeding the public a lie about human induced global warming.
More efficient cars, planting trees, and reducing industrial pollution abatement are all anti-american activities endorsed by those
who hate america and dislike capitalism. [/sarcasm]

Quote :

"ONLY if the journals allow their articles in IN THE FIRST PLACE, which they don't. it's been fairly well documented that anti-AGW articles never have a chance. Besides, why place the burden of evidence on anti-AGW when it's never existed for pro-AGW? "

LOL, you are quite serious aren't you? So some scientist was bored in the 1960's and was like "hey hippy friends I just had
a great idea to crush corporate america and turn the US green friendly. Lets pretend that pollution can effect the environment and CO2
emissions can change the climate. GREAT IDEA!" Our friendly scientist than ran to the democratic HQ in DC; presented the idea
as a recollection of his acid trip to which the idea of global warming was born onto mainstream american politics hook, line, and sinker.


I wonder what the correlation is btw those who absolutly reject the idea that humans, however minor, can have an effect on the climate and those who believe in creationism as well as being pro anti-choice

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 8:46 AM. Reason : a]

3/9/2009 8:44:03 AM

What I'm still trying to figure out is, who has the money and the power behind the global warming conspiracy, and what is their primary objective? Surely anyone who has that kind of power is very rich, you know, paying off all of the thousands of scientists and government leaders you'd have to buy off to trick the world like this, so why would said rich powerful person be looking for socialism?

Maybe george soros is behind it, and he's trying to actually become a dictator under the guise of global warming.

OR, maybe most climate change denialists are being paid off by large corporations that actually HAVE a reason to want to stifle global warming. Luckily for us, it isn't working, since like aaron says - the (primarily) bullshit and (primarily) horribly sourced papers that counter global warming don't usually get into the journals. Consider, just consider, the chance that they don't get into the journals because they're full of logical fallacies, bad sources, or obvious buyoffs by the likes of Exxon.

3/9/2009 3:45:49 PM

^ you guys don't get it. Individually scientist/politicians have something to gain by finding GW as a problem that is human solvable.

For Scientists:
If your study conclusively confirms GW exists and can link it to human activities then you'll make newspaper headlines in (liberal) media that generally wants to push the idea of GW. If your study finds that humans aren't contributers then you don't make headlines.

For Politicians:
If GW exists and people are the problem, then you have something that you can fix. Not only as a politician can you campaign on fixing GW, you can use it to use it as leverage to push through bills that server your own agenda. If GW doesn't exist, then there is no problem to fix. There is nothing to fear monger. As we have seen with Bush and most recently with Obama, fear mongering is a very effective political tool to push one's own political agenda.

3/9/2009 5:20:06 PM

don't scientists have just as much incentive to prove GW false? they'll certainly make a bigger splash if they can provide solid evidence of that.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 5:24 PM. Reason : in fact there's far more coroporate money behind pushing that message.]

3/9/2009 5:23:38 PM

Quote :

"If your study conclusively confirms GW exists and can link it to human activities then you'll make newspaper headlines in (liberal) media that generally wants to push the idea of GW. If your study finds that humans aren't contributers then you don't make headlines. "

Maybe I can make a claim that I have been receiving radio signals from aliens from outer space so i can make headlines and be a rich snooty scientist.

3/9/2009 5:38:25 PM

Quote :

"don't scientists have just as much incentive to prove GW false? they'll certainly make a bigger splash if they can provide solid evidence of that. [Edited on March 9, 2009 at 5:24 PM. Reason : in fact there's far more coroporate money behind pushing that message.]"

Completely wrong. Corporations arguing against regulation face a collective action problem: no one of them will benefit enough to warrant the full lobbying expense and no members can be excluded from benefiting.

Meanwhile, corporations arguing in favor of regulation do not face this problem: whichever corporations lobbied for the law get to write the law in their own favor. The example from Europe is the coal fired power plant owners which lobbied hard in favor of cap and trade and then had themselves issued far more credits than they themselves used; profit. Corporations that were not in favor of cap and trade found themselves with too few or even no credits at all, forced to buy credits from their politically influential competitors, which profited directly by selling their surplus credits and profited even more from rising electricity prices.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/9/2009 5:58:26 PM

well they should just band together and create a non-profit association then

3/9/2009 6:42:18 PM

Quote :

"OR, maybe most climate change denialists are being paid off by large corporations that actually HAVE a reason to want to stifle global warming. Luckily for us, it isn't working, since like aaron says - the (primarily) bullshit and (primarily) horribly sourced papers that counter global warming don't usually get into the journals."

I'm sorry, but it hardly seems right to claim that the anti-AGW people are the ones pushing bad science when the fucking study that practically launched the entire hooplah was a fraud! How can you even begin to claim that there is "bad science" by the anti-AGW people when, frankly, the "science" that started the issue wasn't even science at all? Where was the careful peer review for that? Oh, right, the "peer review" was done by the same fucking people who did the study in the first place!

I know HUR is going on and on about "ZOMG CONSPIRACY," and that is convenient, because he won't address the very real facts about the frauds that have been paraded as science. I'm not over here claiming "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!!" YOU ARE. I am simply stating facts here. Facts that have been brought up in Congressional hearings.

You deny that there is pressure being put on anti-AGW people? What about the numerous cases of politicians claiming that "the science is settled?" That's pressure, whether you like it or not. What about the numerous cases of scientists with VALID arguments being shunned by the community? I mean, jeez, the guys that exposed the fraud of the hockey stick are treated like pariahs, when, in fact, they were the real scientists. What about the propositions that treat AGW-denying almost similarly to Holocaust-denying in Europe? What about the allegedly openly intellectual science societies that will oust anyone who doesn't tow the line about AGW, regardless of the merits of the argument? How the fuck is that scientific?

Is it a conspiracy? I dunno. But don't claim that I am saying it is. Instead, address the very real fact that much of the alleged "science" behind the AGW movement isn't actually science. Science is, for one, repeatable, and predictive. Most of the vaunted models for AGW can't predict what happened in the past. And yet we are stupid enough to try and use them to predict future events? What kind of scientist would even begin to do that?

3/9/2009 7:56:12 PM

Quote :

"I know HUR is going on and on about "ZOMG CONSPIRACY," and that is convenient, because he won't address the very real facts about the frauds that have been paraded as science. I'm not over here claiming "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!!" YOU ARE. I am simply stating facts here. Facts that have been brought up in Congressional hearings."

I keep stating the ZOMG troll banter b.c you completely ignore my argument; which you use merely as a launching point to continue a rehash of the right-wing refute of the global warming debate. My primary premise has not been in support of global warming but...

1.) merely stating that is ridiculous to believe that humans could never have an impact on the climate 2.) Climate research deserves of funding and critique; no matter if it confirms or disproves the hypothesis of artificial climate change.
3.) That scientists/politicians/corporations have more to gain disproving global warming.
4.) That even though their may be a few bad apples, complete non-sense is the claim that even a significant minority of scientists have hidden agendas/interests to fudge/lie/create made up data and evidence. (politicians are a different story...)
5.) Ardent outspoken anti-global warming critics in the general population from my observation would be more resistant to accept, a major breakthru or solid proof (which i agree we don't quite have) of artificial climate change. More so than the converse. This being due imho to ignorance of the scientific method, a financial interest in disproving GW, stubbornness, gullibility to a favorite talk show host, or a combination of all above.

I do not deny that some greedy politicians have a self interest in riding the global warming band wagon. To deny that there is not just as much if not more to disprove global warming though is absurd. Also, I think tax n trade is a horrible extension to public policy. An attempt at green policy that in my mind hurts the reputation of the scientific community who should be funded in an unbiased system to research the potential of global warming not to find data to support a political agenda.

If we are going to completely write off Global Warming THEORY as a ploy from Al Gore and friends than perhaps we better write off evolution, theory of the big bang, or any other scientific theory we do not completely understand.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 9:16 PM. Reason : 1]

3/9/2009 9:08:40 PM

1) Don't disagree. But that doesn't prove AGW.
2) You are correct. Too bad there is no funding to prove that AGW is false.
3) Also false.
4) Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Like Hansen, Mann, and others?
5) That argument applies equally to ardent and outspoken AGW supporters

3/9/2009 9:13:37 PM

Quote :

"2) You are correct. Too bad there is no funding to prove that AGW is false."

This is because a open loop system immune where weather acts independent of human activity is teh norm and has the mainstream since negative infinity. Artificial global warming arose as a hypothesis to challenge the established way of thought challenging a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena seen in climate studies.

For example at my job we have a problem with glass breaking during the final phase of process X. Currently our hypothesis is that the temperature of the bottom burner is low causes these breaks and we need a burner with higher temp. This is a hypothesis formed and evolved through months of research, experimenting, and investigation.

No sense does it make for my boss to assign a different team to test and prove that a higher bottom burner temperature does not fix breaks. Either our hypothesis works or does not.

Quote :

"4) Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Like Hansen, Mann, and others?"

oh 3 scientists is a representative sample of the worlds scientific community particularly those who study climate change.

Teacher: "So little billy what do you want to do when you grow up?"
Billy: "I want to be a climatologist so that i can be bribed by liberals to hurt big corporations by convincing the American public that it needs to reduce carbon emissions or their houses will be flooded or polar bears will die."

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM. Reason : l]

3/9/2009 9:30:16 PM

Quote :

" Quote : "I stated a fact that there is no proof that warmer temperatures will indeed have a negative impact on this planet." Is the stupid stronger than usual tonight, or am I just in a bad mood? "

you're just in a bad mood, because there's nothing wrong with that statement.

3/9/2009 10:10:30 PM

Ok ok, let's put this into context then.

Warmer planet due to natural forces (solar activity, volcanism, tectonic motion, etc.) over a long time scale thus giving nature time to adapt/evolve: Good

Warmer planet due to human activity on a short time scale: Bad. And yes I know you crazies will come out of the woodwork now with "But but but you can't prooooove that humans are actually effecting global temperature! Rabble Rabble Rabble." To which I would point out that if you were not blinded by your own stupidity then you would see that I never said we were.

3/9/2009 10:19:33 PM

But HockeyRoman, Al Gore is making money by giving lectures on global warming! This proves the theory is just a ploy to make money and swindle the American people duh!

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 10:26 PM. Reason : l]

3/9/2009 10:26:36 PM

I save, thus earn, money by living sustainably, frugally, and with limited harm to the environment therefore I, too, must be perpetuating the "climate change hoax" because I refuse to give money to corporations with poor environmental records. Why do I hate peoples' jobs?

3/9/2009 10:32:44 PM

Why do you hate america

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 10:34 PM. Reason : l]

3/9/2009 10:34:06 PM

Quote :

"Ok ok, let's put this into context then. "

that's not context; that's asinine assumptions you've made with no basis whatsoever. Just because you think it sounds good doesn't make it correct by any means.

3/9/2009 10:57:42 PM

Quote :

"Warmer planet due to natural forces (solar activity, volcanism, tectonic motion, etc.) over a long time scale thus giving nature time to adapt/evolve: Good Warmer planet due to human activity on a short time scale: Bad."

What is a short time scale? Last paper I read studied micro-climate shifts and found that Animals were capable of migrating great distances over absurdly short time periods, a matter of years.

Nature manages to survive sudden climate shifts due to erupting volcanos and (small) meteor impacts, I suspect a slowly errupting volcano called AGW wont trick them up.

Quote :

"Billy: "I want to be a climatologist so that i can be bribed by liberals to hurt big corporations by convincing the American public that it needs to reduce carbon emissions or their houses will be flooded or polar bears will die.""

You've got this backwards. Try this:
Billy: "I want to be climatologist so that I can be bribed by Enron to hurt their competitors by convincing the American public that it needs to put Enron's carbon trading services to work or their houses will be flooded or polar bears will die." Now, Enron went bust and the climate change movement lost a decade. But they are back, with new corporate logos (T Boone Pickens et al).

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 11:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/9/2009 11:08:50 PM

Quote :

"Nature manages to survive sudden climate shifts due to erupting volcanos and (small) meteor impacts, I suspect a slowly errupting volcano called AGW wont trick them up."

So just cause nature manages to survive; theoretically if AGW did exist than we should not worry about trying to limit our human effect since after all nature adapts! AM I RITE

3/9/2009 11:37:26 PM

No. No you are not. "RITE" is spelled "RIGHT" or "right" or "accurate" or even "daft" if you want to be sarcastic, but never "RITE".

3/9/2009 11:43:50 PM

Quote :

"I refuse to give money to corporations with poor environmental records"

LOL, thats a joke right? Is this even therotically possible? I would guess that 40-60% of the items I have bought in the last 5-10 yrs included some part or piece that probably originated from China. China is going through an industrial boom right now. Most Chinese manufactures could give a shit less about its employees, and it will be a while before they start giving half a shit about the environment.

3/10/2009 12:20:38 AM

While you may be too lazy to do this it is entirely possible to actually take the time to read where a product is from. Plus, other than food, I typically don't need to buy new things very often. It's all part of being a conscientious consumer and not just buying cheaper, throw away junk. You should try it sometime.

3/10/2009 10:50:59 AM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/03/09/ice-never-sleeps-george-will-jr/

Just in case any of you try to quote this nonsense:

Quote :

"What I find striking about this column is that I don’t actually have to do any fresh fact-checking to identify some problems with it. I already have. Jacoby offers us the same glitch with a satellite sensor that Will did, which he seems to be using to suggest that we don’t really know anything about ice coverage. But as I pointed out on February 27, the scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center who discovered the glitch made it clear that “the temporary error in the near-real-time data does not change the conclusion that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past three decades.” Jacoby then invokes a new paper which I wrote about last week on a potential new shift in the climate. “In a new study, University of Wisconsin researchers Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis conclude that global warming could be going into a decades-long remission.” Remission? You’d think the climate had tumor and was now cancer-free. In fact, Swanson and Tsonis made it very clear that the shift they were proposing was the result of the climate’s natural variability overlaid on the effects of an ever-increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As I wrote in my post, Swanson put it this way to me: “We are describing in this paper what is generally referred to as ‘internal’ (natural) climate variability, superimposed upon a robust global warming trend at century time-scales.”"

3/10/2009 4:03:53 PM

Quote :

"oh 3 scientists is a representative sample of the worlds scientific community particularly those who study climate change."

Not just 3. One of them is the one that, you know, started the whole broohaha. Another is, not surprisingly a major force in the movement, too. If the "best of the best" are frauds, what does that really say about the rest...

Quote :

"Remission? You’d think the climate had tumor and was now cancer-free. In fact, Swanson and Tsonis made it very clear that the shift they were proposing was the result of the climate’s natural variability overlaid on the effects of an ever-increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

Bull-fucking-shit. Why is it that natural climate variablility can only be invoked to explain temperatures going down.

3/13/2009 12:18:24 PM

Fear not TWW the Paul Revere off 2009 is here as aaronburro rides in a fantastic virtual horse back ride shouting

Quote :

"The LIBERAL ARE COMING THE LIBERALS ARE COMING"

to warn us all about those coming to take our monies and deceive our intellects in order to pad the wallet of Al Gore and solar energy companies.

3/13/2009 2:48:40 PM

nice addition to the thread, there, HURsaw

3/13/2009 4:00:19 PM

Actually, he did make two really good points there ^^^.

[Edited on March 13, 2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason : -]

3/13/2009 10:22:02 PM

Rite Aid is spelled with RITE. Also Diet Rite.

3/13/2009 11:04:10 PM

This isn't really GW related but it is good news for the environment. Its a big improvement in battery technology. I wonder how long it will take before we see it in consumer products.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1161274/Scientists-develop-mobile-phone-battery-charged-just-10-seconds.html

3/13/2009 11:09:45 PM

3/13/2009 11:52:32 PM

Quote :

"Bull-fucking-shit. Why is it that natural climate variablility can only be invoked to explain temperatures going down."

What? Maybe you misunderstood - you should read that whole post and the references in it.

3/15/2009 11:08:42 AM

George Bush TAKING MY MONIES FOR OIL COMPANIES AND HALLIBURTON

AL GORE TAKING MY MONIES FOR CARBON CREDITS

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 2:34 PM. Reason : l]

3/15/2009 2:33:33 PM

I hate the crap science and fearmongering that surrounds this issue as it becomes more politicized. When thousands of scientists repeat the risks of global warming, people become gripped by fear and start to repeat the most outlandish bullshit because that's how people are. It's a herd mentality.

Case in point:

Quote :

"A rising sea level caused by a warming climate could cost California an estimated $100 billion in property loss by the end of the century, two-thirds of which will occur in the San Francisco Bay area, a new state-commissioned study has found. The study by the Pacific Institute is one of 40 reports addressing the financial and environmental impacts of global warming that were presented on Wednesday to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Climate Action Team. All the reports are expected to be released by the end of the month. Among the massive damage to infrastructure, the report states that flooding would affect almost half a million people who live in areas at risk. It also estimates that 3,500 miles of roads, 30 power plants, 29 wastewater treatment plants and San Francisco and Oakland International airports are all at risk of being under water. "Sea levels have risen observably in the past century, and scientists forecast that sea-level rise will continue for centuries, even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases immediately," the report states. The study estimates that California will lose 41 square miles of coastline by 2100, and that people in San Mateo, Orange and Alameda Counties are most vulnerable. About 1,100 miles of new sea walls and other flood protections are needed at an initial cost of about $14 billion, the report stated, with another $1.4 billion per year for upkeep. "Sea-level rise will ... increase the size of the coastal flood plain, placing new areas at risk where there were none before," the report found. The prediction of a 1.4-meter sea-level rise over the next century is based on international climate change models that predict more land ice melting as warming continues. On Tuesday, top climate scientists in Copenhagen, Denmark said new research suggests that current international predictions of sea level rise are too conservative, and warned that seas could rise twice as much as previously projected. Beyond basic damage estimates, the report also recommends that coastal structures currently being designed take into account future sea levels, and urges federal flood insurance maps to include information about the future risks. "The research done by the Pacific Institute on the economic impacts of sea level rise are an important reminder for state leaders that taking immediate action is needed to lessen the potential threats of climate change, said Linda Adams, the state's secretary for environmental protection and chair of the Climate Action Team. The Pacific Institute is a nonprofit research agency that works on environmental issues. The report was funded by three state agencies, the California Energy Commission, California Department of Transportation and the Ocean Protection Council."

So where did they get this 140 cm of sea rise over the next century, pray tell? Definitely not the IPCC, which has predicted in it's most recent meeting a sea level rise of just 18-59 cm over the next century, even if the temperature rise continues to accelerate. Did they call up Al Gore and get the number from him? Just because some random scientist in Denmark makes an outlandish prediction of over a meter of sea level rise in the next century doesn't mean that you have to base a study on it, and then scare people into thinking that they are gonna have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in order to fix the problem.

Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. Over the last several thousand years, this rise has been observed at about 1.8 mm per year. Recently, satellite imagery has shown a rise of about 2.8 mm per year over the past 15 years. Is that extra millimeter per year gonna drown all of our coastal cities? C'mon, give me a break. This is not an alarming trend, and it's ridiculous that a study based on crap science and bullshit estimates makes the front page of the LA Times.

3/15/2009 3:19:37 PM

Quote :

"Did they call up Al Gore and get the number from him?"

probably

haha j/k

nahh i agree with your post. I think that humans have an effect on global climate change but like u said with if the natural cycles cause a 1.4mm increase over the last few centuries and our research says that human influence has increased this to 2.2 mm than the difference is nearly inconsequential.

3/15/2009 4:31:29 PM

Quote :

"So where did they get this 140 cm of sea rise over the next century, pray tell? ...some random scientist in Denmark..."

Is that all you guys have? Trying to discredit the science because of who produces it? Come on guys... It's weak and tiresome. It could get be the most "official" legitimate evidence possible and it wouldn't pass with you because of your personal bias.

3/15/2009 6:06:27 PM

^ Critical reading skills would be a useful thing to have before jumping in to a discussion like this. It's quite clear from the context of what he was talking about that he wasn't attacking the producer of the study directly, but the fact that a study was commissioned by California determined that more than $100 billion in property is about to be lost, and another $100 billion needs to be spent protecting the property, all on a single report that puts the rate that the sea level will rise at between 1.4 and 2.8 cm per year over the next 100 years when the current rate is 0.28 cm per year and even the IPCC predicts a mere 0.59 cm rise per year at the worst.

The problem isn't that the report came from Denmark, it's that we're spending money, commissioning studies and inciting panic over a single unconfirmed study that far and away exceeds most current studies.

3/15/2009 6:34:39 PM

Quote :

"he wasn't attacking the producer of the study directly"

Quote :

" a study based on crap science and bullshit estimates "

You guys don't even know anything about the study or studies that were referenced in the California report. The article just mentions one recent one that may or may not have been a source. There are several recent ones that have predicted larger than anticipated sea-level rising.

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2009 7:25:02 PM

how convenient. you complain that anti-AGWs are attacking the source of the "science," but that is exactly what pro-AGWs do all the time. Anyone who disagrees is labeled a crackpot, no matter what his argument.

3/15/2009 10:15:01 PM

EPA has finally completed its proposed rule for greenhouse gas emission reporting.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html

This rule would require approximately 13,000 entities that emit 25,000 metric tons of GHG per year their emissions at a cost of $168 million. Based on a comparison of avg per entity costs to avg per entity revenues, the reg was determined to not have a significant impact on most industries--i.e. avg-per-entity-costs did not exceed 1% of avg-per-entity-sales (yah EPA's RIAs are usually that simplistic).

Hopefully this will put pressure on congress to set up a cap-and-trade system. However, even if they don't, it is within the EPAs power to regulate GHG emissions the same way they do other harmful air pollutants. But that's probably a really bad idea.

3/16/2009 1:54:07 AM

Quote :

"Anyone who disagrees is labeled a crackpot, no matter what his argument."

No, they're labeled crackpots because EVERY TIME, they get the science wrong. That George Will article is a perfect example, and he makes the same arguments that most of the deniers make. The "science" used to deny global warming is often so bad that a 13 year old could debunk it.

3/16/2009 1:44:22 PM

^^maybe they should prove that CO2 is harmful first, instead of just using probable cause and effect situations.

If anyone's interested, George Lindzen's written a nice 25 (or so) page commentary on the scientific community and scientific process in regards to climate change. I don't have a link to it, but I can email it to anyone if they like in pdf form. Or you can do a google search for it: "Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed to Answer Questions?"

3/16/2009 6:19:42 PM

Quote :

"No, they're labeled crackpots because EVERY TIME, they get the science wrong."

You mean like Mann, Hansen, and others did, too? And give me a break, none of the pro-AGWs actually look at the argument. You, yourself, practically proved it with that statement.

Quote :

"The "science" used to deny global warming is often so bad that a 13 year old could debunk it."

And most of the "science" used to support it is so bad that an armchair statistician can debunk it. Oh, wait, that's already happened. DOH!

3/16/2009 7:53:59 PM