Wouldn't all those businesses have business as their bottom line?
S
Glowball Worming: Is the science settled?
by BurnTheShips 27 Replies latest social current
-
Satanus
-
mavie
BTS, the science is settled. Special interests do not want you to think that it is.
"In a candid memo about political strategy for Republican leaders, pollster Frank Luntz expressed concern that voters might punish candidates who supported more pollution, but he offered advice on the key tactic for defusing the issue: "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate..." (The Assault On Reason, Al Gore, pg 200) (Frank Luntz, as quoted by Isaac Chotiner, "Frank Luntz's Tarnished Legacy,", The New Republic, January 29, 2007.) -
VoidEater
Wouldn't all those businesses have business as their bottom line?
That's why the function of "government" is different than the function of "business".
-
mkr32208
Here's my take on it... (I KNOW you've all been waiting!)
Global warming IS happening. No serious scientist dispute that.
It is either;
- Natural
- Man made
- Some combination there-of
If it's A and we try to stop it we're more likely to screw things up worse
If it's B then all we need to do is stop polluting, something we need to do regardless of the temperature of the planet
if it's C then refer to B
It seems to me that NONE of those scenarios don't involve a situation in which we should stop polluting as much as possible ANYWAY! I mean even if it's SOLIDLY A should we keep polluting until it BECOMES B? That's pretty dumb! Lets just stop crapping on our plate while we eat! I mean for real even if we just poop in the corner of the plate and make a nice little wall of peas and carrots to stop the poop juices from running across to the steak... I mean really... This is stupid...
-
davegod
Speaking of glowball's, here is a neat recipe.
Take a 20 oz bottle of mellow yellow, pour all of it out except about a quarter of the bottle. Put in around 1/4 teaspoon of baking soda and 3 capfulls of hydrogen peroxide. Put the lid on and shake it up.
You can pour it on most anything and it will be dayglow, nuclear waste yellow/green!
-
BurnTheShips
That's why the function of "government" is different than the function of "business".
ROFL! I've got some nice land here in Florida to sell you. LOL
-
BurnTheShips
Speaking of glowball's, here is a neat recipe.
Take a 20 oz bottle of mellow yellow, pour all of it out except about a quarter of the bottle. Put in around 1/4 teaspoon of baking soda and 3 capfulls of hydrogen peroxide. Put the lid on and shake it up.
You can pour it on most anything and it will be dayglow, nuclear waste yellow/green!
That's a BS Urban Legend. It doesn't work.
-
Frank75
In a paper Christy et al. 2007 the following comments are made by John Christy with regards his criticism of global climate modeling as it relates to the debate:
First, it is apparent that we have little skill at reproducing and predicting changes on regional scales of the size up to a region like conterminous U.S. Secondly, it is therefore far more difficult to predict the climate effect of a particular policy aimed at altering current emissions of greenhouse gases (by small amounts) and thus somehow "hold back global warming". In other words, we are unable with any confidence to predict or detect climate outcomes from Kyoto-like policy options, especially on the scale where our citizens live.
Even though Christy has been involved with papers in favor of AGW does Christy embrace the main argument about CO2's involvement?
In the following testimony I will first describe how a carefully reconstructed time series of temperatures in the Central Valley of California indicate that changes since 1910 are more consistent with the impacts of land-use changes than the effects currently expectedfrom the enhanced greenhouse theory. (ie CO2)
His critique of the present data?
This and other research points to the need for a better temperature index than what is used now over land: daytime temperatures, rather than the average daily temperatures (used now), are more directly representative of the layer in the atmosphere affected by greenhouse gases. Secondly, I will describe results from two papers which examine our knowledge of atmospheric temperatures as they relate to the surface. The results point to a more modest atmospheric warming than anticipated from our current understanding of the enhanced greenhouse theory. Further, I argue for an independent program with significant funding to evaluate climate model simulations and projections with a healthy, objective eye.
So referring to his study last year of the San Joaquin Valley (inhabited with accompanying land use, irrigation etc) and Sierra Nevada (mostly uninhabited) climate using recorded data from the last 100 years He relates what the figures extrapolated for those two different regions, please note why there is a need to proceed with caution before jumping to conclusion such as the cause of "Global Warming":
We discovered that indeed the nighttime temperatures in the 18 Valley stations were warming rapidly, about 6°F in summer and fall, while the same daytime temperatures fell about 3°F. This is consistent with the effects of urbanization and the massive growth in irrigation in the Valley.
And the nearby Sierra Nevada?
The real surprise was the composite temperature record of the 23 stations in the central Sierra foothills and mountains. Here, there was no change in temperature. Irrigation and urbanization have not affected the foothills and mountains to any large extent. Evidently, nothing else had influenced the Sierra temperatures either.
Quelle suprise! So what about the models being used AT THE PRESENT TIME?
Because these results were provocative, we performed four different means of determining the error characteristics of these trends and determined that nighttime warming in the Valley was indeed significant but that changes in the Sierras, either day or night, were not. Models suggest that the Sierra’s are the place where clear impacts of greenhouse warming should be found, but the records we produced did not agree with that hypothesis.
For policymakers in California this result is revealing. It suggests that to "do something" about warming in central California means removing agricultural and urban development rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The paper then goes on to describe similar micro applications of the climate models in other areas, such as the SE USA and Midwest. Applying the models show warming trends there too while the macro data shows there has actually been moderate cooling.
[Note: as a follow-up to Christy (2002) on Alabama temperature trends, we examined the output from 10 climate models. All models showed a warming trend for 1900 to 2000 in the SE U.S. However, observations show a cooling trend (common throughout the SE U.S.) Additionally, Kunkel et al. 2006 perform a similar analysis for the central U.S. where temperatures have not experience a warming trend while model simulations of the same period do. Kunkel et al. identified this feature in the central U.S. as a "warming hole".]
The conclusion I draw is the same as Christy. Applying our expertise and resources to flawed data and projection models may give us a feeling of well being, but nothing will have substantially been accomplished with regard to the problem of global warming/climate change.
The bottom line here is that models can have serious shortcomings when reproducing the type of regional changes that have occurred. This also implies that they would be ineffective at projecting future regional changes with confidence, especially as a test of the effectiveness for specific policies. In other words it will be almost impossible to say with high confidence that a specific policy will have a predictable or measurable impact on climate.
Given the warnings of people like Reese and Jared Diamond (Author of Collapse), it is vital we do something when society is faced with verifiable predictable catastrophe and or collapse.
Our societal problem is not Global warming per se, because the historical temperature of earth has been all over the place, but rather we should focus on unsustainable consumption of resources. The last time I checked, those resources included much more than fossil fuels. Rather than unreliable computer models that can be shown to be weak, questions of conservation and resource management need not require much more than a slide rule, calculator or spreadsheet. Population control should be our first order of business. Oh and possibly a little diet and exercise!
The debate continues.
Frank75