Coldest June in more than a century

[BlauBear]

Very observant Papabear! I am surprised Blue did not catch that! Hey Bob, you shuld go and change it to Bleu for blue cheese and give the nom de plume a foreign touch! Even one with a smell! Kinda like scratch and sniff! You could even have a cheese avatar!

I want to change mine to duckgunbo since Mordecai had my Steelchickens hat done with that name on it! He and Byron blaimed it on the fucktards in Washington, but I know better!

I like the German spelling better (Blau = Blue auf Deutsch), Ducky, since they have better engineers and their gadgets are way more interesting than French cheese! On the other hand, the French are less irritable than the Germans so maybe you have a point.

Mary, I had a professor that said "If data and theory disagree, one must be changed." so "Global Warming" could easily be just another flavor of the month, but something unusual is going on or countries wouldn't be in such a rush to claim land uncovered by receding polar ice. Another friend of mine was arguing against global warming, but when he mentioned something about Adam & Eve riding dinosaurs I just changed the subject.

Scientific method has a way of exposing error because everyone wants to make a name for themselves, plus, the instant an idea is popularized facts get twisted. If global warming is just another fad, that will come out.

[WORMY]

As the Director of Utter Nonsense...Engineers drive a train, right?

I don't drive the train.
I don't ring the bell.
Let the train run off the track
I catch all the hell...

An American Worm

[Innocent]

As Mary has pointed out, only she possesses the skill to properly calibrate instruments and collect data

What skills I have are not important...what education I have and what I choose to do with it are. I would suggest that you be careful about making any statements about my skills education or otherwise as I do not recall having met you so I doubt that you are in a position to pass judgement on what I do.

I'll go along with Wormy, and quote on of my log books..
"if only people could see what baby alligators do to a bloody tampon tossed into the water near their log on the bank."

In other words Carl I do not waste my time arguing about what I have seen, not only in the field but what uneducated and unobservant people believe when they read something someone wrote. I can also prove many cases of field persons not recording things accurately as they were too lazy to go to the site...just write something down, no one will know the difference or care. Radio telemetry and GPS's are slowing down some of that type of BS but only if the managers care enough to do anything about it.

Mary

[BlauBear]

It didn't take long for this thread to turn fun!

It's easy to forget that science doesn't "Prove" anything, it only tries to measure probabilities and even perfect data can get mangled in the analysis, even without an agenda. Gore definitely got some of it wrong, and I don't know the truth in this case but there is clear evidence that something is going on and the only valid argument is over what.

Gore has presented one scenario that some of y'all are challenging by attacking the messenger, belaboring the fallibilities of data analysis, or making it "Liberal Media Propaganda", and that draws a bullshit flag. If the science is wrong this is a damn good time to prove it!

[carl425]

What skills I have are not important...what education I have and what I choose to do with it are. I would suggest that you be careful about making any statements about my skills education or otherwise as I do not recall having met you so I doubt that you are in a position to pass judgment on what I do.

I've made no judgment on what you do, only on what you said. You claimed personal knowledge and experience that allowed you to disqualify the theory of global warming.

I called bullshit.

[carl425]

Jason,

The only recognized scientific organization that denies human induced effects of global warming is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Here's the list I could come up with that have come down on the other side of the argument:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies

[carl425]

Ok I have to jump in and say what I think about global warming, climate change or whatever the grant hustlers are calling it these days.

We have the sun overhead. The sun is essentially a GIANT nuclear reactor over which we have zero control. Underneith us is molten lava in excess of 1800 degrees. We are sandwiched inbetween these two major sources of heat that we are not at the controls of to adjust. To think that you can merely look back at the last 150 years of recorded data representing about .00000003% of the total lifespan of earth to this point using the 4.5 billion year old theory on the earths age. Take a careful look at how many decimal places you have to go to get to that 3 and you realize we are talking about data which amounts to essentially less than nothing.

Scientist need research grants to make a living it is what many of them do. Have you ever noticed at the end of most research grants when the final report comes out the last sentence is always the same "More research will be required to find out the implications of X, Y, Z." I read that as our funding just ran out and we need more funding to keep us employed. When the "climate folks can tell me exactly what the weather will be like next month much less 100+ years from now I might start to believe their data but not until then at a minimum.

For every research paper you show saying one thing there is at least one other out there to directly contradict the results. These research people are in many ways like politicians using scare tactics to get money and using one side to say the other is wrong so that in the end both sides get to keep on keeping on without anything coming from it all.

As for Al Bore and his Noble Prize I pretty much wrote off the Noble prize being a prestigious highly respected award when they gave the Peace prize to Yasar Arafat. Tell me is there peace in the middle east?

To think we have such control over the earth and the solar system is ridiculous. Having been through several major Hurricanes and a few weeks ago a minor tornado I can assure you mother nature can and will do whatever the hell she wants whenever she wants and no politician or tree hugger can stop her.

Ok semi rant over.. I am just so fed up with this Go green shit everywhere I look.

Dee

Your idea of solving the debate by looking at who stands to make or lose money is a good one. Unfortunately, you've got it backwards - twice.

1) The folks that believe global warming is real are convinced. They don't want grants to do more research.

2) The folks that would be hurt financially by the proposed corrective measures are the ones that say the jury is still out and more research is required.

[Jason]

Jason,

<snipping out irrelevant crap>

What additional research would you have me do?

You just don't get it. Quoting a bunch of names isn't research. It's saying "They believe it so I do too!" By research, I mean actually look at data yourself. Don't accept others' conclusions without examining the real data they have to back them up. I am not saying you are unintelligent because I don't know you well enough to know that, but I can say with certainty that you are ignorant about this issue by your own choice and obviously plan to stay that way. For instance, solar activity is much more likely the cause of the climate change cycles than any type of hydrocarbon usage by humans. Actually read this article.

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity ... e10630.htm

I can't say that I believe everything in it, as it doesn't have enough data for my tastes. I think it's hilarious that they are predicting another ice age, though. I have researched it enough to know that it has a better shot at being right than the "global warming due to human CO2 production" theory does. It could be the reason. It could not be. Hydrocarbon usage and the resultant greenhouse gas production isn't. I don't know if Dee was referring to this or just has more than a decent share of common sense. Either way, Dee's a lot closer to actually thinking through this than you are. That's all it takes, a little thinking. Don't accept what anyone else says, whether it be the New York Times or Rush Limbaugh, without running it through your own bullshit tester.

You obviously haven't done any research on this, so I'm a bit puzzled by why you're so passionate about it but still refuse to dig further into it. I have researched global warming for a few years and have debated it for almost as long. What we have here isn't a debate. It's people who have actually done research trying to get you to do your own and think for yourself, and you getting all emotional and namedropping because you don't have any data or any intention to find any. The only person with any real first-person credibility in this discussion is Mary, and she gave you a much more civil response to your insults than you deserved. She is an actual scientist, all day every day. I'm decently close in that my day job is practical application of science on a large scale, but nothing close to her.

I will be glad to compare data with you. You bring the data to support hydrocarbon usage by humans as the source of global climate change and I'll bring the data that says solar activity is the source. As I said, I don't fully believe the solar activity theory yet. It's a lot more likely (I know how you love that word) than human hydrocarbon usage, though, as the driver for climate change. Until you have data, I think I'll hold off on this discussion. I enjoy debates, but without you bringing data this isn't one. You came into this discussion with nothing but personal insults and that's still all you've contributed to it.

[BlauBear]

Jason, citing resources is legitimate academic research, although verifying raw data (as you and Innocent advocate) is even better. I lack the background to do anything meaningful with the raw data, though, and have to trust (always dicey) the experts to challenge and verify each other.

Wouldn't it be odd if human activity was causing global warming that, ironically, came just in time to prevent or buffer another "Little Ice Age"? Would we have to build monuments to SUV's for saving civilization?!

[Jason]

I agree, Bear. Making a list of names and quoting one statement from the EPA website that itself makes it very clear that there is no data to prove the assertation is not research, though. Citing real sources with discussion of conclusions from actual data would be much better, as you suggest. Mapping historical temperature change versus hydrocarbon usage yourself would be better, and luckily is fairly easy given that weather data has been recorded for a couple hundred years and history since the industrial revolution and Henry Ford's wonderful assembly line is pretty comprehsive. You underestimate your own ability to research and draw a conclusion, I think.

[Innocent]

What additional research would you have me do?

Talk with Tom Kirk, president Eppley Labratories, one of the two primary manufacturers of Absolute Cavitity Radiometers that are used by WMO and all of their affiliated organizations. The PMOD (Davos) has only in the last two years started to measure/record the IR radiation with any accuracy. Having seen the results of the outputs of solar thermal units tested under extreme differences in IR, I can tell you that we are only just beginning to understand all of the complications from ignoring such 'small' bands of lightwaves.
We as humans cannot control mother nature, and while I do not deny that we do have a lasting impact on the environment, our pollution in the water, is far more damaging to all things than what we do to the air.
Economics and human laziness/personal comfort is the driving cause of most of our human created environmental issues, change the "need" for air conditioners/heaters and all of the energy using systems that we run and we will have a very small impact of the environment.

Carl, while you quote many of the organizations that publish the BS, I agree with Jason, when and how did you look at the raw data and come to your own conclusions. And finally, sir, what are your qualifications?

Mary

[carl425]

Talk with Tom Kirk, president Eppley Labratories, one of the two primary manufacturers of Absolute Cavitity Radiometers that are used by WMO and all of their affiliated organizations. The PMOD (Davos) has only in the last two years started to measure/record the IR radiation with any accuracy. Having seen the results of the outputs of solar thermal units tested under extreme differences in IR, I can tell you that we are only just beginning to understand all of the complications from ignoring such 'small' bands of lightwaves.
We as humans cannot control mother nature, and while I do not deny that we do have a lasting impact on the environment, our pollution in the water, is far more damaging to all things than what we do to the air.
Economics and human laziness/personal comfort is the driving cause of most of our human created environmental issues, change the "need" for air conditioners/heaters and all of the energy using systems that we run and we will have a very small impact of the environment.

Carl, while you quote many of the organizations that publish the BS, I agree with Jason, when and how did you look at the raw data and come to your own conclusions. And finally, sir, what are your qualifications?

Mary

What is with you two? Am I not entitled to an opinion until I've traveled to the north pole and taken my own core samples from the ice, and then documented my results to your standards?

I don't have to do the research myself, we have scientists for that!

When you get on an airplane, do you do your own research on how to operate a 747, or do you let the pilot drive?

When you have a tumor, do you biopsy it yourself to determine if it is cancerous?

Did you raise and slaughter the cow that went into last night's cheeseburger?

Are you both unfamiliar with how civilization functions? The bakers bake, the farmers farm, the bankers bank... and everybody benefits from the specialization of others.

I choose to let the people who's job it is do the work and draw the conclusions, when it's something important, I get a second opinion. I've read a shit load of second opinions from people who's job it is to do this research. Doing it myself would be meaningless.

[duckgumbo]

Just trying to get mu post count up! This is really getting great now!

Carl,

I have read your posts and the posts by Jason and Innocent and have to say that they are definitely winning this debate. Maybe you can get Blaubear to assist you as it seems that two-on-one is a little too much for you to handle. For me, I will stay out of the debate and urge the bullshit on! Besides, I have already made my mind up by reading about this and I do not disagree with you about global warming, but it is definitely a bunch of liberal bullshit! By the way, I did not say you were liberal and I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh

[tbone49]

You guys are putting me to sleep, which I would do if it wasn't so dang hot.

[BlauBear]

It's clear from history that human activity can and does impact the environment. As recently as the 1960's, there were similar arguments over our use of insecticides and their effect on wildlife and some rejected the notion that human activity could significantly pollute something so huge as the ocean. So while it is certainly possible that so much of the scientific community is wrong, they have made their case and the burden of proof is on the minority.

Attacking the data analysis without providing specifics is a debate trick, not proof, and arguing for delay so more data can be collected is a delay tactic most people will ignore. Our information about the Little Ice Age predates modern data collection equipment and methods, but we still use the information.

Legislators will begin passing laws based on the prevailing science sooner rather than later, so valid scientific argument needs to come front and center real soon. We need to get this right.