USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

[PapaG]

You missed the boat about the flawed assumption regarding CO2 trend and global temps. You keep wanting to know why they don't correlate. Let's just assume there are OTHER factors that work to lower global temp over a short period. Volcanic eruptions or massive sandstorms (if I remember right, crazy as it sounds, sandstorms actually do have a solid impact) put an unusual amount of particulate into the atmosphere to deflect the sun's light over a short period of time (say 10 years). La Nina is strong and lowers global temp. The melting of the polar ice provides a new sink for CO2 and not as much of the global CO2 is in the atmosphere to act as a greenhouse gas. I have no idea whether some or all of these are correct, but the point is that other forces are at play in determining global temp. Some of them may very well have had a larger impact on decreasing global temp than CO2 had on increasing it during that 10 year period. This doesn't mean that CO2 isn't important -- it just depends on what those other factors might be and the magnitude of their impact.

The weight of the data is in favor of the fact that global warming is occurring and that CO2 plays a major role. I could've post a crazy number of peer reviewed articles that would drown out your plot (that seemed to come from a blog.) I don't think we shut down the economy over the current strong scientific consensus, but we're fools if we don't start trying to address the issue. At the same time, let's gather more data and make some informed decisions. I'd like to think we're not at the point of directing major international policy based on blogs. Twitter maybe, but not blogs.

I'll put the rest of your post in the circular file labelled "econ major pretending to be a scientist".

If you're a scientist, I can see why the bunk being sold as fact is being sold as fact. Find me the actual impact of the "other factors", via data, and what their impact is on temperature.

 

[PapaG]

I could've post a crazy number of peer reviewed articles that would drown out your plot (that seemed to come from a blog.)

That seems to be the position you take on this as well. Can't refute the data, so shout out loud and drown it out.

 

[mobes23]

It seems to me the loudest people on this issue are the types who riot outside the WTO meetings. They're anti-capitalist if they insist on doing things of minimal true benefit for the ecology at major expense to the economy. The key being - anything to be a major expense to the economy/harm it.

Yeah, I think a chunk of this is because of a reaction (possibly over-reaction) to Bush's policies. The editing/revising of climate-related, federally funded scientific papers was bad, bad policy. Truth can hurt, but hiding the truth can hurt a lot more. On the side of the left, it really fired people up. Quite possibly to the point that the left is now cramming down science that doesn't mesh with it's politics.

Yeesh to it all.

 

[PapaG]

Yeah, I think a chunk of this is because of a reaction (possibly over-reaction) to Bush's policies. The editing/revising of climate-related, federally funded scientific papers was bad, bad policy. Truth can hurt, but hiding the truth can hurt a lot more. On the side of the left, it really fired people up. Quite possibly to the point that the left is now cramming down science that doesn't mesh with it's politics.

Yeesh to it all.

Anyhow, we're getting nowhere with this. We likely have near the same view on my position, we just aren't arguing it in congruence. The EPA under Obama recently did the exact same thing by repressing a report critical of global warming. Missed that one on the evening news.

It must be my "econ" background.

 

[mobes23]

If you're a scientist, I can see why the bunk being sold as fact is being sold as fact. Find me the actual impact of the "other factors", via data, and what their impact is on temperature.

If the issue had been fully resolved by scientific consensus, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Hate to break it to you, but science rarely fits so neatly in a box. When it does, it takes time to reach that consensus. In this case, we're talking climactic change and that will be especially difficult because the time periods being studied are so crazy huge. Also hate to break this to you, it won't be either of us that makes it happen. Gonna take time and research and a lot of people smarter than either of us to make it happen. In the meantime, get ready to tighten the belt some on emissions.

1. If we do nothing and the CO2 impact on global warming is huge as advertised, the worst thing that could happen is world catatrophe.

2. If we cap emissions and the CO2 impact on global warming is neglible, the worst thing that could happen in economic catastrophe.

I'll pick 2 over 1 if I have to choose, but I'd prefer an intelligent approach to capping emissions that saves us from #1 while minimizing the impact on the economy. An intelligent approach will mean listening (honestly and free of an agenda) to science to weigh environmental impacts while shaping policy to keep the economy going.

 

[mobes23]

That seems to be the position you take on this as well. Can't refute the data, so shout out loud and drown it out.

Not true. I responded to your posts -- you just didn't like my responses. The equivalent of me shouting would've been to start posting links to peer reviewed articles in support of CO2/global warming and asking YOU to review and respond to them (much like I did to your plot.) You should be glad I didn't ask you to try and wear the Mr. Science hat, econ man.

 

[mobes23]

The EPA under Obama recently did the exact same thing by repressing a report critical of global warming. QUOTE]

I in fact DID miss it and I hate it equally.

 

[PapaG]

The EPA under Obama recently did the exact same thing by repressing a report critical of global warming. QUOTE]

I in fact DID miss it and I hate it equally.

That's because it didn't make any of the major network news. It's hard to be a skeptical scientist when your research gets suppressed by the media and the government.

 

[mobes23]

That's because it didn't make any of the major network news. It's hard to be a skeptical scientist when your research gets suppressed by the media and the government.

Like I said before, the exact same thing existed under Bush (just with the roles reversed.) Both are b.s.

 

[barfo]

What the data shows is that those who seem so sure shouldn't be so sure. This begs the question of why they act so sure. mobes23 hit that one out of the park - politics, not science.

Yep. I guess you don't think that applies to you, though? You are so sure of your position on this that you accuse thousands of scientists of lying about their data.

mobes23 is indeed right - there are a lot of people that are pretending to be scientists without the proper tools.
There is a reason scientists spend years becoming expert in their particular niches - because this stuff is complex. If you think it is real simple, it's because either (a) you are a genius, or (b) you don't understand it. B is a lot more common than A.

It seems to me the loudest people on this issue are the types who riot outside the WTO meetings. They're anti-capitalist if they insist on doing things of minimal true benefit for the ecology at major expense to the economy. The key being - anything to be a major expense to the economy/harm it.

One of the top three, if not the single loudest person on this issue in this forum is... Denny Crane.
Not that that's a bad thing. I for one enjoy these discussions and your contributions.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The EPA under Obama recently did the exact same thing by repressing a report critical of global warming.

No it didn't. As we previously discussed in another thread, this was not a suppression of science, this was ignoring an unsolicited "report" on climate change written by an economist. Big difference.

It must be my "econ" background.

Most likely. Same as the guy who wrote the EPA "report".

barfo

 

[mobes23]

No it didn't. As we previously discussed in another thread, this was not a suppression of science, this was ignoring an unsolicited "report" on climate change written by an economist. Big difference.



Most likely. Same as the guy who wrote the EPA "report".

barfo

Lol. Damned economists anyway. Social scientists trying to play the role of hard scientists is never a good thing.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, I think a chunk of this is because of a reaction (possibly over-reaction) to Bush's policies. The editing/revising of climate-related, federally funded scientific papers was bad, bad policy. Truth can hurt, but hiding the truth can hurt a lot more. On the side of the left, it really fired people up. Quite possibly to the point that the left is now cramming down science that doesn't mesh with it's politics.

Yeesh to it all.

Those people were setting fires, spiking trees, chaining themselves to fences to stop bulldozers, and otherwise "protesting" long before Bush.

The president, no matter who it is, tends to be a lightning rod for the haters in the other party. If you don't like "haters" then maybe "overly partisan" is the better term.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yep. I guess you don't think that applies to you, though? You are so sure of your position on this that you accuse thousands of scientists of lying about their data.

A lot are. I've posted a few times quotes from top scientists in the 1970s and beyond saying they had to lie for the effect.

mobes23 is indeed right - there are a lot of people that are pretending to be scientists without the proper tools.
There is a reason scientists spend years becoming expert in their particular niches - because this stuff is complex. If you think it is real simple, it's because either (a) you are a genius, or (b) you don't understand it. B is a lot more common than A.

The thing is, I know as much as Einstein ever knew. I learned it all in freshman chemistry and physics.

I didn't have to go to school to read a couple of textbooks on what Einstein was all about, either.

There's an awful lot of people who don't have college degrees that are experts in science, medicine, the law (hell, you've heard about inmates who study the law books and petition the SCOTUS and get heard, right?)

One of the top three, if not the single loudest person on this issue in this forum is... Denny Crane.
Not that that's a bad thing. I for one enjoy these discussions and your contributions.

barfo

LOL

That Barfosky fellow is in the news bigtime.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5heUXausbmwbNjC7_DaF4ZnJ3dYhgD99IALO80

Govt.'s Wall Street, bank support could be $24T
By JIM KUHNHENN (AP) – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON — The watchdog overseeing the federal government financial bailout says the government's maximum exposure to financial institutions since 2007 could total nearly $24 trillion, or about $80,000 for every American.

The whopping amount compiled by the inspector general for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program takes into account about 50 initiatives and programs set up by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve.

Many of the programs are backed by collateral and the $23.7 trillion represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face. No one has suggested that the full amount, in fact, will be used.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government's main watchdog over the federal financial bailout says the Treasury Department has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations aimed at making the $700 billion program more accountable and transparent.

Neil Barfosky , the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, says in a report to Congress that Treasury's inaction means taxpayers have not been told what the financial institutions that have received assistance are doing with the money.

Barfosky's conclusion is contained in testimony he is prepared to give Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

 

[barfo]

The thing is, I know as much as Einstein ever knew. I learned it all in freshman chemistry and physics.

The thing is, the fact that you think you learned everything that Einstein ever knew in freshman chem and physics just shows how much you don't know about the subject. Einstein knew a lot of stuff that no undergraduate class will ever touch.

There's an awful lot of people who don't have college degrees that are experts in science, medicine, the law (hell, you've heard about inmates who study the law books and petition the SCOTUS and get heard, right?)

There are an awful lot more people, by probably a factor of 100,000:1, that think they are experts but actually aren't.

That Barfosky fellow is in the news bigtime.

I'm suing him for identity theft, as soon as I study some law books.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The thing is, the fact that you think you learned everything that Einstein ever knew in freshman chem and physics just shows how much you don't know about the subject. Einstein knew a lot of stuff that no undergraduate class will ever touch.

Einstein was far from perfect. His cosmological constant was something he claimed to be his biggest mistake. Yet he was quite right, just didn't realize it was dark matter/dark energy he needed to describe (but predicted).

You're right for once. He probably knew a lot of things about his wife I'll never know.

There are an awful lot more people, by probably a factor of 100,000:1, that think they are experts but actually aren't.

Prove it. I think we need a graph. Or are you the 1 in 100,000:1 who's the expert on who's an expert?

I'm suing him for identity theft, as soon as I study some law books.

barfo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright

Meanwhile, maybe you can tell me what public school and law school that Jefferson and Lincoln went to.

 

[barfo]

Einstein was far from perfect. His cosmological constant was something he claimed to be his biggest mistake. Yet he was quite right, just didn't realize it was dark matter/dark energy he needed to describe (but predicted).

Hey, I'm not claiming he's perfect. Just that he was more knowledgeable than freshman chem/physics students.

You're right for once. He probably knew a lot of things about his wife I'll never know.

That, and physics.

Prove it. I think we need a graph.

I submit as evidence:

SportsTwo Forums > Basketball > National Basketball Association > Portland Trail Blazers > Blazers OT Forum

Meanwhile, maybe you can tell me what public school and law school that Jefferson and Lincoln went to.

They went to Jefferson and Lincoln High Schools, obviously. Right here in Portland Oregon.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I know more than he did, this is just plain silly.

I know that the laws of physics are not universal, he didn't know that.

Why? Because Steven Hawking wasn't around when he was.

 

[barfo]

I know more than he did, this is just plain silly.

I know that the laws of physics are not universal, he didn't know that.

Why? Because Steven Hawking wasn't around when he was.

You are no doubt right that you know some things he didn't, but you also know much less about physics than he did.
You are also right that this is silly.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

No it didn't. As we previously discussed in another thread, this was not a suppression of science, this was ignoring an unsolicited "report" on climate change written by an economist. Big difference.



Most likely. Same as the guy who wrote the EPA "report".

barfo

Incorrect.

But you can hear in his voice that Dr. Carlin, who got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT, is not easily silenced.

A regular crackpot. I'm sure "barfo" and "mobes23" know more than a 38 year veteran of the EPA.

Demonize the opponent. Straight from the playbook. Nice job, fellas.

Mobes/barfo? Did you go to CalTech or MIT? Have you worked for the EPA for 38 years?

 

[PapaG]

Thread check to make sure I'm clear here.

A C student from Harvard who failed out of divinity school is the mouthpiece for the anthropogenic global warming movement. He declares "the debate is over" and wins an Academy Award plus a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so.

A Physics grad from CalTech with a Ph. D in Economics and 38 years as an EPA analyst is a crackpot for writing an "unsolicited" 98-page report that offers new data that refutes the notion that "the debate is over".

God Bless America.

 

[Denny Crane]

Change!

 

[barfo]

Incorrect.

What, exactly, was incorrect in what I wrote?

But you can hear in his voice that Dr. Carlin, who got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT, is not easily silenced.

I can? I don't hear anything. Do I need to turn the sound up?

A regular crackpot. I'm sure "barfo" and "mobes23" know more than a 38 year veteran of the EPA.

I'm not writing any unsolicited reports on climate change. I know I'm not an expert.
I also know you aren't an expert, and I know he's not an expert.

Demonize the opponent. Straight from the playbook. Nice job, fellas.

Mobes/barfo? Did you go to CalTech or MIT? Have you worked for the EPA for 38 years?

Well, I haven't ever worked for the EPA, so you got me there. And I understand, given how you revere long-term government bureaucrats, that Carlin would be a hero to you. But he's an economist. A bachelor's degree in physics, even it is from Caltech, doesn't make you an expert in this subject. If pointing that out is demonizing him, then I'm hereby demonizing all of us.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Thread check to make sure I'm clear here.

A C student from Harvard who failed out of divinity school is the mouthpiece for the anthropogenic global warming movement. He declares "the debate is over" and wins an Academy Award plus a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so.

A Physics grad from CalTech with a Ph. D in Economics and 38 years as an EPA analyst is a crackpot for writing an "unsolicited" 98-page report that offers new data that refutes the notion that "the debate is over".

God Bless America.

Ted Kaczynski was a math professor at Berkeley. Guess he wasn't a crackpot after all.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Ted Kaczynski was a math professor at Berkeley. Guess he wasn't a crackpot after all.

barfo

You argue he's an expert.

 

[barfo]

You argue he's an expert.

I do? I'd argue he's an expert in math, but when he tries to address another subject (sociology), he's a crackpot.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I do? I'd argue he's an expert in math, but when he tries to address another subject (sociology), he's a crackpot.

barfo

So the EPA employs people like "crackpot" Carlin, who has an undergrad degree from Cal Tech and a Ph. D from MIT, for 38 years? What does that say about the credibility of the EPA?

You're not making much sense hear. Smear the man if you must, since you are obviously doing so, but you don't smear the agency employing for almost 4 decades?

You aren't making any sense. I suggest attacking my grammar/spelling, since destroying the opponent, and not the message, seems to be what you are all about. I gave you a freebie.

 

[barfo]

So the EPA employs people like "crackpot" Carlin, who has an undergrad degree from Cal Tech and a Ph. D from MIT, for 38 years? What does that say about the credibility of the EPA?

Probably nothing very much. I don't think less of Berkeley for hiring Kaczynski. I'm sure he did math well enough, and I expect Carlin does his job well enough. His job just doesn't happen to be "scientist".

You're not making much sense hear. Smear the man if you must, since you are obviously doing so, but you don't smear the agency employing for almost 4 decades?

How is (accurately) calling him an economist a smear? I don't have any undue lack of respect for economists.

You aren't making any sense. I suggest attacking my grammar/spelling, since destroying the opponent, and not the message, seems to be what you are all about. I gave you a freebie.

I thought the US vs Global thing was a big enough gift, thanks.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't have any undue lack of respect for economists.

I do. I mean (I do!) really. Though I read your words to mean "I have due lack of respect for economists."

The truth be known, they're right up there with astrologers.

There's another breed of economist I do respect - the ones who are philosophers.

Adam Smith, JS Mill, Robert Nozick, and even Marx.

 

[barfo]

I do. I mean (I do!) really. Though I read your words to mean "I have due lack of respect for economists."

I wrote it first without the word "undue", and then I thought that adding "undue" would be funny.

barfo