Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA - Page 10 - Forums at Modded Mustangs
 53Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #181 of 462 Old March 19th, 2015, 05:21 PM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
I hadnít read about this before. It was very interesting. Apparently they believe that the tree ring proxy data is good back centuries but that it suddenly became not accurate in 1960. Skeptical science automatically suggested that it was a man-made problem but when challenged they said the cause was not known but was it was suspicious. Iím going to try to find more information on this.
It's not a belief, it's in the data.



They go on to say that it's likely a range of issues causing the divergence:

Quote:
Various studies have noted the drop in Alaskan tree-growth coincides with warming-induced drought. By combining temperature and rainfall records, growth declines were found to be more common in the warmer, drier locations.

Studies in Japan and Bavaria suggest increasing sulfur dioxide emissions were responsible.

As the divergence is widespread across high northern latitudes, Briffa 1998 suggests there may be a large scale explanation, possibly related to air pollution effects. A later study by Briffa proposed that falling stratospheric ozone concentration is a possible cause of the divergence, since this observed ozone decline has been linked to an increased incidence of ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation at the ground (Briffa 2004).

Connected to this is global dimming (a drop in solar radiation reaching the ground). The average amount of sunlight reaching the ground has declined by around 4 to 6% from 1961 to 1990.

One study suggests that microsite factors are an influence on whether individual trees are vulnerable to drought stress. Eg - the slope where the tree is located, the depth to permafrost and other localised factors (Wilmking 2008). This paper amusingly refers to the divergence problem as the "divergence effect" so as "to not convey any judgement by the wording" (you wouldn't want to offend those overly sensitive Alaskan trees).

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 462 Old March 19th, 2015, 08:54 PM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,514
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Harvard-Smithsonian Physicist: Computer Models Used by U.N. Overstate Global Warming

(CNSNews.com) – A scholarly paper explaining why predictions made by climate computer models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to exaggerate global warming has ignited a political firestorm.
Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, came under attack by environmentalists after co-authoring a peer-reviewed paper explaining “the widening discrepancy between prediction and observation” in climate change models, and members of Congress soon took sides.

The scientific paper, entitled “Why Models Run Hot,” concludes that the computer models overstated the impact of CO2 on the climate: "The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC's current projections."

“We said the models were wrong because they were using a rogue equation borrowed from electronic circuitry and bolted on to the climate, where it does not fit. That equation, and that alone, leads the modelers erroneously to triple the small and harmless 1 Cļ global warming we should expect from a doubling of CO2 in the air,” he wrote.

“Take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of manmade global warming and the imagined climate crisis vanishes.”



Harvard-Smithsonian Physicist: Computer Models Used by U.N. Overstate Global Warming | CNS News
JohnC, thank you for posting that article. I have seen that chart before but didn't use it because I didn't know where it came from.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #183 of 462 Old March 19th, 2015, 09:17 PM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
JohnC, thank you for posting that article. I have seen that chart before but didn't use it because I didn't know where it came from.
Unfortunately you've already provided Monckton's work and it's been shown to be a sham.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #184 of 462 Old March 19th, 2015, 10:29 PM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,514
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixpointslow View Post

:
I saw that chart. And I read those comments in Skeptical Science. Don't you dig any deeper than that?

If you notice that chart is from the tree ring cores in Alaska. But Briffa wasn't using Alaska core data. He was basing his findings on tree ring cores from Yamal, Siberia. Both of your previous sources mention Yamal. And the Yamal data doesn't show the divergence problem. Actually it showed what they wanted the Alaska data to show without imposing temperature readings.

This had me scratching my head until I realized it was two different data sets.

I have to admit. I find researching this very interesting. The secrecy, international intrigue, and interpersonal conflict makes for a good story. Briffa refused to make his data available. Canada's McIntyre had been trying for years through the UK's Freedom of Information Act to get access to the data. Then Climategate, investigation, and UK's information commissioner made Briffa publish his data in 2009.

McIntyre analyzed Briffa's data. Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem ę Climate Audit He first noticed that even though the Yamal data set was larger and that CRU (Briffa) was only using 12 core samples (reduced to 10 in 1990 and 5 in 1995). He then compared the CRU set (dead trees) to Schweingruber data set (live trees) from basically the same area. The Yamal data didn’t show the divergence problem but Schweingruber’s did. He also compared Briffa 2000 to the Polar Urals reconstruction. The Polar Urals data showed higher temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period and lower temperatures in our modern period than Briffa. The small dataset and other coincidences led to accusations of cherry-picking.

In 2012, a summary of this was published. The sum of Yamal is greater than its parts | Watts Up With That? What is interesting in this summary is that it shows the data from the individual core samples. It show that a single core sample was driving the hockey-stick look of the chart.
Then a 2013 Briffa combining Yamal and Polar Urals data. RealClimate: Yamal and Polar Urals: a research update This dataset reduced the growth (temperature) in both our modern era and the Medieval Warm Period making the Roman Warm Period equal to both. Their conclusion was that the last 100 years are the warmist in the last 2000 years in that region.

It is interesting that Mann’s original hockey-stick chart showed almost a constant temperature through both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age then a sharp increase in the last few decades. Now it is likely that the average of the last century is the warmist century. I pretty much think it’s too close to call.

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixpointslow View Post
Unfortunately you've already provided Monckton's work and it's been shown to be a sham.
This statement is complete BS. It was a Harvard-Smithsonian sponsored paper completely peer reviewed published in January 2015. No one has had time to prove it a sham. What are your sources.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #185 of 462 Old March 19th, 2015, 10:50 PM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
I saw that chart. And I read those comments in Skeptical Science. Don't you dig any deeper than that?

If you notice that chart is from the tree ring cores in Alaska. But Briffa wasn't using Alaska core data. He was basing his findings on tree ring cores from Yamal, Siberia. Both of your previous sources mention Yamal. And the Yamal data doesn't show the divergence problem. Actually it showed what they wanted the Alaska data to show without imposing temperature readings.

This had me scratching my head until I realized it was two different data sets.

I have to admit. I find researching this very interesting. The secrecy, international intrigue, and interpersonal conflict makes for a good story. Briffa refused to make his data available. Canada's McIntyre had been trying for years through the UK's Freedom of Information Act to get access to the data. Then Climategate, investigation, and UK's information commissioner made Briffa publish his data in 2009.

McIntyre analyzed Briffa's data. Yamal: A ďDivergenceĒ Problem ę Climate Audit He first noticed that even though the Yamal data set was larger and that CRU (Briffa) was only using 12 core samples (reduced to 10 in 1990 and 5 in 1995). He then compared the CRU set (dead trees) to Schweingruber data set (live trees) from basically the same area. The Yamal data didnít show the divergence problem but Schweingruberís did. He also compared Briffa 2000 to the Polar Urals reconstruction. The Polar Urals data showed higher temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period and lower temperatures in our modern period than Briffa. The small dataset and other coincidences led to accusations of cherry-picking.

In 2012, a summary of this was published. The sum of Yamal is greater than its parts | Watts Up With That? What is interesting in this summary is that it shows the data from the individual core samples. It show that a single core sample was driving the hockey-stick look of the chart.
Then a 2013 Briffa combining Yamal and Polar Urals data. RealClimate: Yamal and Polar Urals: a research update This dataset reduced the growth (temperature) in both our modern era and the Medieval Warm Period making the Roman Warm Period equal to both. Their conclusion was that the last 100 years are the warmist in the last 2000 years in that region.

It is interesting that Mannís original hockey-stick chart showed almost a constant temperature through both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age then a sharp increase in the last few decades. Now it is likely that the average of the last century is the warmist century. I pretty much think itís too close to call.

---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------




There is a reason the IPCC reduced its estimate of future warming. You require us to post proof of such claims. And I hope you go a little deeper than a link to Skeptical Science.
Where are you getting that his chart is based on tree ring cores only in Alaska? And I prefer Skeptical science because they always reference the paper they grab their information from. Did you read Briffa's 1998 paper that the chart I provided comes from? It's 10 pages or so, so it's not like it would be hard to look into, and the link was right in your face seeing as you already saw it.

From the report:


2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #186 of 462 Old March 20th, 2015, 12:49 AM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,514
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
I was going off of memory. I just double checked the link. It was first observed in Alaska but the study was later expanded. Still the Yamal data set of 12 cores used by Briffa did not show the same divergence of that study.

I still call BS on your comment about that Harvard-Smithsonian sponsored study.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #187 of 462 Old March 20th, 2015, 11:24 AM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,514
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
I hadn’t read about [the divergence problem] before. It was very interesting. Apparently they believe that the tree ring proxy data is good back centuries but that it suddenly became not accurate in 1960. Skeptical science automatically suggested that it was a man-made problem but when challenged they said the cause was not known but was it was suspicious. I’m going to try to find more information on this.
In his 1998 paper where he documented the divergence problem which started around 1960, Briffa points out that there were drops in the growth of trees after large volcano eruptions.

A 2014 study of Arctic trees may have shed some light on the subject ( pun intended ). Arctic study sheds light on tree-ring divergence problem The study compared tree cores from trees growing from trees growing in the shade to trees growing in the light but both were in the same temperature range. Light intensity appears to be the cause. The trees getting the most light grew faster. They said, "In the brightest areas the divergence problem essential disappears." They confirmed these findings by looking at the impact of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

Divergence appears to be caused by global dimming. The primary suspect is man-made particle emissions (pollution). This article reinforces that notion. http://www.newsweek.com/climategate-...roversy-250208 In explaining tree ring divergence, Stine said
Quote:
In rapidly industrializing parts of the world with fewer emissions laws—like Southeast Asia—the light decline is particularly steep, and continues into the 21st century. On the other hand, in areas like the U.S. and Europe, you see a rapid decline in the middle of the 20th century, but then light levels steady themselves later on—right around the time most air pollution laws were put into place.
This makes sense.

Please note: Pollution is particle emissions. CO2 is not. Divergence is not proof of man-made warming. CO2 is actually good for trees. Briffa talked about the increase in growth in trees from higher CO2 levels and how they are a good carbon sink.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #188 of 462 Old March 21st, 2015, 12:20 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,045
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
I think Eric ran out of canned rebuttals from the Global Warming Propagandists at Skeptical Science because like a ghost, he's GONE! <crickets>


2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #189 of 462 Old March 21st, 2015, 02:11 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
I was going off of memory. I just double checked the link. It was first observed in Alaska but the study was later expanded. Still the Yamal data set of 12 cores used by Briffa did not show the same divergence of that study.
So wait a minute... First your making the argument that Briffa cherry picked data from an area where divergence exists and now your bitching that he didn't cherry pick from an area with little to no divergence? Not really sure what you're getting at here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
I still call BS on your comment about that Harvard-Smithsonian sponsored study.
Speaking of cherry picking...

1. Limiting the argument to land temperatures, which was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the data points used in the graph JohnC so eagerly shared.

2. Limiting already cherry picked data to an arbitrarily picked period of "pause". We've been over this part of the argument to the point we've killed the horse. Models made to predict long term trends being attacked with short term, cherry picked results is intellectually dishonest. I can't remember who said it, but its like assuming at sundown that the sun will never rise again. Itís not an impossible outcome, but itís probably worth waiting until morning to find out if youíre actually right. Monckton is making the assertion that the current upward trend that, notably, even his cherry picked data shows as existing is going to remain relatively flat (and publicly claims will begin to cool). There is no evidence to suggest this. Creating your own formula and presenting it at proof is hilariously wrong.

You say there is no way the article has been shown for what it is so early(very confidently put, by the way), but yet this paper has seen boat loads of criticism from all sorts of angles.

Critique of the model

Issues in the data

This analysis by Carbon Brief which draws it's arguments from this Nature article.

Climate Economy Society's take

Climate Depot's breakdown.

I'm going to leave out ass ton of reports and opinions over the issue over the fact Willie Soon is heavily funded by big oil.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
I think Eric ran out of canned rebuttals from the Global Warming Propagandists at Skeptical Science because like a ghost, he's GONE! <crickets>

I'm off Thursday and Friday's. You'll notice I post on here between the hours of midnight to around 4am EST unless I have time on my phone to argue(like the last post I made). I don't concede to arguments I find untruthful because if I had no argument to make, how can I make such a claim? I'm not like you, after all. You... LOL. You have got to be the biggest hypocrite I've ever encountered which, in the age of the internet, is quite a crown to hold.

Also, have you read the information available on Skeptical Science? I know you are much more concerned with the talking points over the science, as well as sticking to stuff that agrees with you, but it's worth reading. At least Eagle has done that.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #190 of 462 Old March 21st, 2015, 04:07 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,045
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixpointslow View Post
I don't concede to arguments I find untruthful.
So you're saying you waved the white flag because you believe the other side challenging the Global Warming scientists, paid for by Big Governments (via tax dollars), are all lies? smh

I guess all science was settled the first time any hypothesis was ever made.

STOP THE DEBATE! DO NOT CHALLENGE NOR TEST THE SCIENCE EVER AGAIN!!!!!



Eric, there is no such thing as settled science. Science is about forming a hypothesis and proving it based on the evidence.

For science to be settled, it means that every time one tests the hypothesis you get the same result. For example, without any other influences every time you heat water up to 212 degrees it boils. Climate scientists can't say this about global warming. For example none of their experiments to test their hypothesis predicted the great pause in warming that is still happening now.

The fact that all these high paid Global Warming scientists, that get their funding from Big Government, want to shut down all debate is all the more reason to question the unsettled science. There's far too much politics involved in it. There is far too much taxation and control embedded in the war on Global Warming that they have cooked up (carbon tax, carbon credits, carbon trade system, laws, regulations, other taxes, controlling production and consumption of products, etc.) not to be skeptical of the motivation of all this alarmism as if the sky is falling and we have to save the planet NOW or die!

That said, I can't understand why you trust EVERYTHING the Govt cranks out of the left-wing.

For example... Big Government always has your back, right, Eric? They would never manipulate the data to force you to make choices they want you to make, that you otherwise wouldn't make, right? But the old Obama Czar said it best.


Let's not forget about Climategate Emails (Google it):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/0...te-2-0-emails/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-debate/

Don't buy in to the alarmism 100%, Eric. The debate is far from over.


2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #191 of 462 Old March 21st, 2015, 04:29 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Now you're resorting to a trivial argument. You really are a scum bag, John. No, the science is never settled, but that doesn't preclude accepted scientific findings from being correct.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #192 of 462 Old March 21st, 2015, 04:42 AM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,045
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixpointslow View Post
No, the science is never settled.
Well at-least a little bit of light shines through that leftist brain once in a while.

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
post #193 of 462 Old March 21st, 2015, 04:51 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
Well at-least a little bit of light shines through that leftist brain once in a while.
Interesting how that only seems to apply to science you disagree with. There is a term for your fucked up mindset, confirmation bias.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #194 of 462 Old March 21st, 2015, 10:27 AM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,514
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixpointslow View Post
No, the science is never settled, but that doesn't preclude accepted scientific findings from being correct.
This is true. And, it doesn't preclude it from being wrong either. Scientists argue research and findings all the time. To summarize the investigation's findings (You did read the part where the investigation said they were not investigating the science but the process didn't you?) within variability and uncertainty of the data and the fact that other research is being published, no evidence was found of CRU wrong doing. I accept that. After all, scientists argue competing theories all the time. Usually in very thick publications that no one else reads or understands.

The problem is that scientists are not driving the boat. Politicians are. And politicians are not unbiased. Politicians seized upon this issue as a means of getting power and control. Some already had a base of ready to believe supporters. All they needed was to start the movement.

But you cannot drive a political movement on moderate consequences centuries away. In order for people to go along with fundamental changes in society (economics, industry, transportation, etc.) and fundamental changes in their own lives, the consequences would have to be grave, no, they would have to be catastrophic.

In order to take control the people must see a need for immediate action. Natural causes must be discredited at all cost. People will not go along with fundamental changes in society and their lives if the end result cannot be changed.

Politicians and big government money are driving the boat. Scientists are stuck in the middle. In one of the emails one of the scientists complained about being unable to be true to both science and the IPCC. The politicians needed certainty but the scientist saw the variability and uncertainty. That is tough duty.

This is the one thing that we can agree on. The science is not settled.

I would like to reiterate my stance on this subject. I don't deny that CO2 is impacting our climate but I believe that there are natural causes to climate change as well.

P.S. While I have found these discussions interesting and educational I have completely run out of bandwidth and my internet service will be "throttled" for the next week. Basically I'm operating at the speed of dial up. Oh, this also impacts my wife's Facebook useage.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #195 of 462 Old March 21st, 2015, 04:29 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,092
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
This is true. And, it doesn't preclude it from being wrong either. Scientists argue research and findings all the time. To summarize the investigation's findings (You did read the part where the investigation said they were not investigating the science but the process didn't you?) within variability and uncertainty of the data and the fact that other research is being published, no evidence was found of CRU wrong doing. I accept that. After all, scientists argue competing theories all the time. Usually in very thick publications that no one else reads or understands.

The problem is that scientists are not driving the boat. Politicians are. And politicians are not unbiased. Politicians seized upon this issue as a means of getting power and control. Some already had a base of ready to believe supporters. All they needed was to start the movement.

But you cannot drive a political movement on moderate consequences centuries away. In order for people to go along with fundamental changes in society (economics, industry, transportation, etc.) and fundamental changes in their own lives, the consequences would have to be grave, no, they would have to be catastrophic.

In order to take control the people must see a need for immediate action. Natural causes must be discredited at all cost. People will not go along with fundamental changes in society and their lives if the end result cannot be changed.

Politicians and big government money are driving the boat. Scientists are stuck in the middle. In one of the emails one of the scientists complained about being unable to be true to both science and the IPCC. The politicians needed certainty but the scientist saw the variability and uncertainty. That is tough duty.

This is the one thing that we can agree on. The science is not settled.

I would like to reiterate my stance on this subject. I don't deny that CO2 is impacting our climate but I believe that there are natural causes to climate change as well.

P.S. While I have found these discussions interesting and educational I have completely run out of bandwidth and my internet service will be "throttled" for the next week. Basically I'm operating at the speed of dial up. Oh, this also impacts my wife's Facebook useage.
JohnC take note. You cry about how us climate change anarchist discount your argument out of hand yet when someone presents it factually it is a much more compelling debate. While much of Eagles argument can be refuted by data he has made some very compelling and truthful arguments that put CC into question. Granted I still side with the 97% as, for me, the data is overwhelming but, again, Eagle brings up some good points. Do they equate to a statement that can be made in regards to climate change denial? No but he presents his argument in a non-confrontational way. He is here to debate and LISTEN to what the other side also has to say on the subject and he actually takes it into account and admits that some of the data points the other side of the argument is making have validity. This is how you constructively debate someone. Not how you do it with name calling, trivial attacks and blind, unflinching ideology.

Democrats aka socialists(at least in your mind) actually have some pretty smart people on their side too! How about we put both sides of the braintrust together and come up with a solution that can benefit both sides rather than trying to only look at your side of the argument because you want to add another notch to your belt.

John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles
Novanutcase is offline  
post #196 of 462 Old March 22nd, 2015, 08:16 AM
Pawsitively sexy
 
Sixpointslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lower Sussex, DE
Posts: 10,564
                   
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
The problem is that scientists are not driving the boat. Politicians are.
We totally agree here and completely disagree at the same time. Politicians are running the show.



This is the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Wow. But we've been here before. People assume this guy is smart, which perhaps he is. But saying that since it snowed where I live that global warming is a hoax is ridiculously stupid.

The tobacco industry spent decades arguing that smoking wasn't harmful. Then it turned to second hand smoke. Nearly 10 years ago U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona declared that the science was clear, second hand smoke is a major health risk. Joseph Bast, the head of the Heartland Institute(a leader in Climate denialism as well), called it junk science. When you look at their methods for denying the health effects all those years, it is nearly a mirror image of the methods used today to deny AGW. Conspiracies, false experts, cherry picking, setting impossible standards, and exploiting logical fallacies. It's the same playbook. I know you don't agree with this, but it's my perspective. Saying that the scientific community as nearly a whole has been influenced by political forces fits the bill of conspiracy theory to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
P.S. While I have found these discussions interesting and educational I have completely run out of bandwidth and my internet service will be "throttled" for the next week. Basically I'm operating at the speed of dial up. Oh, this also impacts my wife's Facebook useage.

2012 CTS-V

Not stock


Sixpointslow is offline  
post #197 of 462 Old March 22nd, 2015, 01:29 PM
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
Novanutcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,092
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Inhofe being the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is probably the cruelest joke our government has pulled on us so far.

John

SOLD - '03 GT, Max Moto Max Grip Box, Wilwood SL 6 front/DL4 rear Big Brake Kit, Corbeau Seats, MGW Short Shifter, MAC Long Tube Headers/Prochamber mid/ Flowmaster 40, FRPP 4.10, TrickFlow Diff Cover/75mm TB/Plenum, Eaton Posi, Moser 31 spl Axles
Novanutcase is offline  
post #198 of 462 Old March 23rd, 2015, 07:55 PM
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,514
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
I really hate this. I can click on a link, go to the kitchen, make a sandwich and come back before the screen updates (It's not really that bad but it feels like it.) It's a lot worse when the wife points it out.

Off topic: I heard a story once. It basically said, "You are happier when you are unhappy and the wife is happy than you are when you are happy and the wife is unhappy." Yep. I can see where that came from.

I saw this and I thought it would needle you warmers (We beat each other up so much I almost consider you family.)Oops! No March Tornadoes? Climate Alarmists Perplexed

Warming is not leading to catastrophic consequences. Actually, I've read reports that worldwide crop reports are at record levels. (I live in farm country.)

Now to the dismay of the deniers I will comment on this. This is called weather, not climate change. Both sides try to use weather to push their agenda but weather and climate change are different. Throughout history there have been 100 year events. If you want to know about such events google "Rabbit Hash Kentucky." I've been there and seen the flood marks on the (three or four) buildings in the town. (It's a really little town.)

Still, this lends a little credibility to those who say that a warming planet will not create the catastrophic events that the warmers expect. I've posted links to what Europe went through during the Little Ice Age. Flooding was really bad. Those links also showed no floods in Northern Europe during the Medieval Warm Period. The cold really does make things bad.

P.S. Please don't post videos and hundred page documents refuting this. You know I can't read them and I tried to be fair.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #199 of 462 Old March 23rd, 2015, 08:05 PM
missippi roolz
 
socialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,215
         
iTrader: 3 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
I really hate this. I can click on a link, go to the kitchen, make a sandwich and come back before the screen updates (It's not really that bad but it feels like it.) It's a lot worse when the wife points it out.
Just wait till net neutrality is in full swing: no more caps and throttling!!!!

JohnC:

Then again, if you're in a rural area you may be SOL

ďA young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.Ē (Mark 14:51-52)
socialist is offline  
post #200 of 462 Old March 23rd, 2015, 11:39 PM Thread Starter
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,045
           
iTrader: 1 reviews
Thumbs down

[quote=brtnstrns;10228033]Just wait till net neutrality is in full swing: no more caps and throttling!!!!

JohnC:

Going to reply to this in the FCC/Net Neutrality thread...

2010 CGM Camaro 2SS RS 6L90
Stage II ProCharger D1X
760rwhp @ 14 PSI

JohnC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome