View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thanks. Unfortunately, the GW alarmists, as ISO calls'm, and the Fox News laughers dominant the discussion, thereby, squeezing out a real look at the science and its consequences. Im done on GW, I say change the subject to Sarah Palin's new reality show, being produced by Mark Burnett, creator of Survivor(true story). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jpbassking wrote: | isobars wrote: | You're obviously very young,... |
Wrong again oh great one. |
All I have to go on is your behavior. If that's misleading, that's not my fault.
Mike |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
boggsman1 wrote: | I say change the subject to Sarah Palin's new reality show, being produced by Mark Burnett, creator of Survivor(true story). |
I hate to do this to you Boggsy, but this is another "true story" that will benefit from a rather closer examination. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mrgybe wrote: | boggsman1 wrote: | I say change the subject to Sarah Palin's new reality show, being produced by Mark Burnett, creator of Survivor(true story). |
I hate to do this to you Boggsy, but this is another "true story" that will benefit from a rather closer examination. |
This late in the day, my mensa hat is off, ya got me on the last one ??????? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mrgybe wrote: | boggsman1 wrote: | I say change the subject to Sarah Palin's new reality show, being produced by Mark Burnett, creator of Survivor(true story). |
I hate to do this to you Boggsy, but this is another "true story" that will benefit from a rather closer examination. |
This late in the day, my mensa hat is off, ya got me on the last one ??????? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17748 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mrgybe--I first started looking into global warming as a graduate student in coastal engineering in the 1980's. Initially as a skeptic, particularly given the tendency of the proponent at that time, who worked for EPA, to present doomsdat scenarios. I am no longer a skeptic, there are substantial, non IPCC-related discussions, thousands of documents, about global warming. You can look for some threads here in the forum, including Isobars reference of documents that come from supporters of Canadian coal sands developers and Margaret Thatcher's economist, that claim this is all manufactured. And as best I can tell, the current right wing screaming about the IPCC has to do with 2 or 3 references, out of many, that weren't properly referenced or peer reviewed. There is no doubt that there is alamist stuff out there, including by Gore. But the usual reasoning I get is that Al Gore flew to a conference in a jet and therefore global warming is a hoax.
As a public official with decision-making responsibility, and an ethical responsibility to look at evidence, I have followed a number of deniers claims down the path to either dead ends or suspect sources. I know of no scientists of the many studying climate change in California, or San Francisco Bay in particular, that doubt climate change is occuring. None. All of these folks are more specialized in science than I am.
Tomorrow when I am in my office, I will pull a few specific source documents that have convinced me that 1) an increase in average temperature of about 1-1.5 degrees has occurred over the last 100 years, and 2) there is a solid theoretical relationship between carbon dioxide and warming--I'll even use the guy that Isobars claims supports his view; 3) specific examples of how much money the carbon industry has spent lobbying against global arming legislation, and perhaps a misleading web site that is funded by oil money.
On your part, I would like you to recognize that the IPCC has recognized the need for further review of their work. If you think there is a conflict of interest, be specific of exactly what it is, and what your source is, and I will follow it up. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can anybody tell me what the correct temp is supposed to be at any particular place, and at any particular time of the year?????
Didn't think so.
And why is it that so many more people die every year, all over the world, from extreme cold rather than extreme heat?
It's not even close!
Thank you Gore and others, for having the scientists chasing their tails over this "crisis".
Here's the latest hockey stick graph for ya.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"So you're OK with impugning the actions and motives of entire industries without supporting evidence........just based on a hunch? Mac stated that the energy business spent billions of dollars brainwashing us last year that global warming is a hoax and that middle east energy supplies are safe and secure.........where's the evidence of that? It all comes down to credibility.......when people make statements that are not credible, then one starts to wonder what other pronouncements were flawed........just like those of the IPCC."
Supporting evidence? You must be joking.
All I pointed out is that is that money and influence are a part of the picture. Do you think I'm wrong about that?
As far as the arena and the spectacle being played out, I think I made my point with my later post about the use of the OJ Simpson defense strategy. Facts have only so much strength. The idea is to work at any weaknesses where possible and use them to your advantage. The focus isn't about truth, it's about interests and ways to leverage them. Not everyone's goals are honorable, or have merit.
It's like skiing fast in clear weather versus doing it in a total cloud. If the strategy of some is to create a fog and obscure the facts, one ultimately needs to see the best path ahead.
Are folks sharp enough to see through the fog? Given some of what I've seen and heard, I have to question whether they are. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, the global warming graph is so trick!
How inventive.
Do you plan to spend some quality time breathing the exhaust from your family car? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
swchandler wrote: |
Supporting evidence? You must be joking.
All I pointed out is that is that money and influence are a part of the picture. |
No, actually, this is what you "pointed out"........"I wouldn't doubt that the oil, coal and other energy industries spent in the 7 or 8 figure ranges to push their interests.". I wasn't joking, just asking what basis you have for so little doubt. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|