1115.org

Comments

1. jamiebeth wrote:

   did the white house just admit that climate change is happening? isn’t that news in and of itself?

   Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 8:19 am ¶

2. matt wrote:

   had you been paying proper attention to JimC’s input on the subject, you would know that the official line is “climate change is happening, humans not to blame.”

   Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 8:39 am ¶

3. sarabeth wrote:

   what kind of bubble you been livin’ in, jamie beth?

   am rushing off now to run some errands, but I’ll post la bimberino’s version of “but this is what we’ve always maintained” later.

   Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 8:42 am ¶

4. sarabeth wrote:

   I can’t find what I thought I had seen yesterday, so I’ll just offer this instead:

   There is robust information about where we stand on policy, on the science, on the initiatives, and on the international cooperation that we have initiated under this President.
   […]
   Clearly we think climate change is a problem. We know that the Earth is warming. We believe that humans are largely responsible. And the President has initiated a process so that we can get to a framework to have discussions about how to end global warming after 2012.

   You gotta love that turn of phrase: initiated a process to get to a framework to have discussions about ending global warming after 2012.

   At another point in the same briefing she went:

   Anybody who wants to look at what the President thinks about climate change looks — needs to only look back three weeks ago to when he gave a major address on climate change when he invited all 15 of the major economies of this world to come together to work on a solution…

   and then to her credit she immediately corrected herself:

   work on a path to get to a solution to help the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

   If you complain bitterly about misrepresentations, you have to applaud such scrupulous accuracy. So rare in her line of work.

   Posted 26 Oct 2007 at 11:38 am ¶

5. JimC wrote:

   “climate change is happening, humans not to blame.”

   My position is that climate change is happening but how much mankind contributes to that is indeterminate. I know there is also climate change on Mars and I’m not ready to blame my Tundra for that just yet…

   Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 12:10 pm ¶

6. sarabeth wrote:

   the consensus of scientists doesn’t matter one bit, right?

   Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 1:40 pm ¶

7. sarabeth wrote:

   even the Bush White House’s official position is now “We believe that humans are largely responsible.”

   How determinedly dumb do you have to be to take a more extreme position than the Bush White House on global warming?

   Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 1:42 pm ¶

8. JimC wrote:

   Let me ask you, sarabeth, why is Greenland called “Green”land? Why is Mars going through similar warming trend as Earth? As for the consensus of scientist, depends on the definition of ‘consensus’..

   However, my position is that we *should* do things to reduce our carbon output, develop clean energy, get off oil dependency, and take care of the Earth responsibly but not out of knee-jerk “sky is falling” hysteria. One the latest insane reactions was a proposed 50cent per gallon of gas tax to curb consumption. It is this kind of brilliant thinking that is the offspring of such chicken little mentality being pushed about “global warming” that scares me more than a supposed 1 degree increase in temps over the last century.

   How determinedly dumb do you have to be to take a more extreme position than the Bush White House on global warming?

   Very funny. Turn that around a bit and ask how incredibly dumb is it to take a position to agree with Bush on a scientific matter. :-)

   I don’t know how much man contributes to the 1 degree of warming in the last 100 years, but facts like Greenland (remember why is it called Greenland?) and a warming Mars give me enough pause to question the hysteria.

   Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 3:00 pm ¶

9. sarabeth wrote:

   depends on the definition of ‘consensus’.

   no, it doesn’t! depends only on the definition of credulous.

   Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 3:24 pm ¶

10. JimC wrote:

    I suppose you’re correct considering the “consensus” is not really a consensus,

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

    The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

    These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

    Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of “90% likely” man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of “thousands of scientists” involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of “lead authors.” The introductory “Summary for Policymakers” — the only portion usually quoted in the media — is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters — the only text actually written by scientists — are edited to “ensure compliance” with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

    Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 4:16 pm ¶

11. sarabeth wrote:

    If 500 “scientists” take a crap on science because someone pays them to do so, that doesn’t make the science untrue.

    Why don’t you quote from a respectable scientific journal for a change?

    Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 4:53 pm ¶

12. JimC wrote:

    If 500 “scientists” take a crap on science because someone pays them to do so, that doesn’t make the science untrue.

    Why were they paid to say anything? Why is it that if people counter the view you’ve chosen, then they’ve clearly been bribed??? lol

    Did you read the 2nd article I quoted above? I guess given the “consensus” argument which consensus are you talking about? The one cited by the UN? Because the above quote sheds light on that “consensus”….the only consensus is that climate change is happening however the myth is that there is a consensus among scientist that climate change is manmade….

    Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 5:19 pm ¶

13. matt wrote:

    Let me ask you, sarabeth, why is Greenland called “Green”land?

    you stupid copy/paste motherfucker. go back to third grade, and the freeper morons you got this from

    Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 5:48 pm ¶

14. sarabeth wrote:

    You seem to have some totally crazy (and I mean that very literally) notion that all citations and references carry equal weight.

    As for which consensus I’m talking about, it’s the consensus in respectable scientific journals. It’s not something you would have a nodding acquaintance with.

    Why were they paid to say anything?

    Because that, whether you like it or not, is the bloody evidence, you clit. The studies that are skeptical whether global warming exists, and whether it is man made, are financed by the likes of oil companies. Just as the studies claiming that the evidence against tobacco was inconclusive were financed by the tobacco industry.

    Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 6:26 pm ¶

15. sarabeth wrote:

    as for that lol, why don’t you conduct the following scientific experiment:
    1) roll it up into a tube
    2) insert tune in your anus
    3) have a friend or loved one pour diced habaneros through the tube
    4) write down exactly what you feel over the next 60 minutes
    5) send it to Mukasey and ask him if he thinks that constitutes torture
    6) ditto Giuliani (better spell out for him how it was done, and by whom)
    7) do that thing with the duck

    Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 6:40 pm ¶

16. sarabeth wrote:

    this is a total waste of time.

    I don’t give two hoots what shit you choose to believe.

    I don’t see why I should care either what shit you choose to spout here.

    Sense having finally dawned upon me, I’ll just retire from this pointless game.

    Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 6:42 pm ¶

17. JimC wrote:

    you stupid copy/paste motherfucker. go back to third grade, and the freeper morons you got this from

    Well, it feels like we’re already there! I didn’t copy anyone except the sources I found myself using everyone’s favorite search engine. Why is it that I must have been given a memo on this and just regurgitating freerepublic? Except for Sarabeth’s fly on th wall, I assume the links you usually provide are found in much the same way or handed to you from like minded bloggers. I copied nothing from freerepublic nor went anywhere else except google to find the links above, if that is not acceptable then what is???

    Because that, whether you like it or not, is the bloody evidence, you clit. The studies that are skeptical whether global warming exists, and whether it is man made, are financed by the likes of oil companies. Just as the studies claiming that the evidence against tobacco was inconclusive were financed by the tobacco industry.

    Oh really? Got any evidence that any of the links I commented on were financed by Big Oil? Perhaps all the hysterical doomsday scientist were paid for political reasons? In fact one of the NASA scientists who made such a clamor was paid by political activists like Soros. (by the way, I have not visited freerepublic in any way shape or form to retrieve any information provided).

    Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 10:36 pm ¶

18. JimC wrote:

    BTW - Someone just freakin humor me. Why is Greenland called “Green”land?

    I have posted the answer here before but since it is too painful to admit, the answer is…

    The next migration came from the east, following “Erik the Red” Thorwaldsson’s exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name “Greenland” was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.

    Also BTW - this did not come freeperland but rather a nice non-political “Explore the North” website but of course I’m sure they were paid to say it.

    Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 10:54 pm ¶

19. matt wrote:

    go fuck yourself

    Greenland was discovered by Vikings sailing from Iceland about 1,000 years ago. While it had an ice cap then, the climate was relatively mild and they were able to establish colonies in coastal areas. Those colonies later vanished as the climate cooled.
    […]
    The DNA, dated to between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, may be the oldest yet recovered, according to the team. DNA found previously in the Siberian permafrost has been dated to 300,000 to 400,000 years ago.

    However, because of uncertainties in interpreting the age estimates, they could not rule out the possibility that the newly found DNA dates to the last interglacial, 130,000 to 116,000 years ago.

    then again, you don’t know what an interglacial is. add it to the list.

    you’re on very thin ice again. regardless of anything that has gone on, staking out a position to the right of the white house on anything is simply disingenuous.

    stop equating the short side of arguments with the side that has all the facts, science and an overwhelming consensus. remember, you defended bush, the war, blackwater, etc long after it was accepted that they had no clothes either.

    you’re not making arguments that belong beside what we write here, and that’s the bottom line. we don’t spend hours researching posts so that you can say “hmm, those godless libruls are making me mad, i’m going to go to google and copy/paste whatever i find because i don’t know anything about it first hand, but that will neutralize it and stop the voices in my head.”

    last and final warning. there are cases you can make. don’t try to stretch to make cases that can’t be made by anyone. anyone trying to argue against man made global warming would get laughed out of the hall. that’s what’s going to happen here, you now have my word.

    you want to talk about something? fine. what are the two and only two reasons that a person could, at this time, and with the facts involved, argue against taking action on global warming?

    Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 7:28 am ¶

20. matt wrote:

    also, global warming denial from none other than…

    Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 7:33 am ¶

21. JimC wrote:

    Thanks for the link to the foxnews article, I hadn’t seen that one! My whole point about Greenland is that it shows warming and cooling periods occurring throughout history. It shows that before the industrial age there was a period of warming and then a few hundred years later cooling. So why is today’s warming any more alarming than it was 1000 years ago?

    “hmm, those godless libruls are making me mad, i’m going to go to google and copy/paste whatever i find because i don’t know anything about it first hand, but that will neutralize it and stop the voices in my head.”

    I don’t know why you insist that I’m some freeper drone, I am not taking marching orders from anyone and furthermore I am willing to wager that my understanding of the situation is far greater than you think.

    You don’t make me mad and on this topic of spending time to research? What research? Tell me your methodology so that I can play by your standards. What constitutes “research”? Do you use google or are you actually talking to scientists yourself and reading all the peer reviewed papers? I’m just curious as to what you consider legitimate research at the blogger level? And why is it that you assume that I what I find is any less legitimate? How much time to you spend vetting your information on this specific topic or do you let trusted others do the vetting? I just want to know what you mean when you spend “hours of research”, specifically on this topic of climate change.

    In researching climate change did you even consider the ramifications of a warming Mars (please tell me those were paid operatives)? or previous warming and cooling cyclic periods in Earths history? The cyclic climate change camp is not some big oil purchased group. I suggest you stop dismissing the idea and consider it during any discourse on this topic. I suggest a google research project on: cyclic climate change.

    In actuality, I’m taking a more scientific stance, I’m not ruling out man made contributions to climate change however there are very real compelling arguments for cyclic climate change (and Mars can even be considered a control subject) and until there is a real consensus on the cause of climate change, we should check the rhetoric and have a measured response.

    two and only two reasons that a person could, at this time, and with the facts involved, argue against taking action on global warming?

    There are only two reasons? Well, I would have to say one of them is for global financial reasons and the other is that the actual effects are of a warming climate are not fully known. Where some areas may be devastated other areas may become open and more productive (like Greenlan between 986-1200AD). Earth’s population has been more or less accustomed to the climate of the last 1000 years. A shift in climate may not have a net devastating effect. The result would be a forced adaptation to the new climate reality. Another reason could be that the global climate modeling is inaccurate and we need an accurate assessment.

    Of course these choices are not really relevant because I see that irregardless of the cause, we can and should change our energy sources. My view is that we should do the things we can to reduce our carbon output, find alternative fuels, etc and that even if global warming may be a cyclic event rather than man made, that in either case, steps should be taken to do provide cleaner energy (just without the hysterics).

    also, global warming denial from none other than…

    That wasn’t a denial but a mocking of the popular out of context “proof” of global warming by citing the current day’s unseasonably warm temps.

    Finally, you have escalated for various reasons why I am on thin ice but now I am at a point where I am commenting with content backed up with citations. Whether or not you chose to read, accept, or reject my citations is up to you. However the simple dismissals, citing my sources as inadequate but not specifying why (or even making wildly incorrect assumptions where I obtained my information) is weak, which is fine but don’t pretend like you’re taking the educated road when you refuse to consider or even refute with substance anything I cite with links….if my sources are bad, show why they are (or why they are corrupt and have been paid to say what they’ve said)…or don’t , but don’t censure me with fallacious claims or statements intended to impress that you have actually considered my sources and found evidence of why they cannot be acceptable, simply put Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!.

    Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 6:52 pm ¶

22. JimC wrote:

    This article sums up my attitude with respect to global warming quite nicely. Mainly that by accepting one side of the debate and as you put it laugh any dissenters out of the hall will do far more damage to the truth. Real science isn’t about pushing a political agenda but much like other theories taken as gospel, real scientific processes lose out.

    Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 7:09 pm ¶

23. matt wrote:

    i told you to stop arguing global warming. you just can’t help yourself, can you. adios, asshole!

    Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 10:27 pm ¶

24. greenland wrote:

    isn’t greenland called greenland to fool other european explorers into trying to colonize/inhabit a chunk of ice so the vikings could have the spoils of greener places like iceland? jim C you are such an asshole…earth’s climate is most recently changing from an ice age to what we are currently experiencing…we are now in the warmest part of earth’s recent history….the last 10,000 years or so have been spent warming up, so the people that named it greenland, certainly didn’t find a nice verdant green oasis up there in the arctic circle…in fact, they found a much icier place…MORON

    Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 1:54 pm ¶

25. greenland wrote:

    also jim c you freaking retard, scientists don’t take sides on anything…politicians do…a scientist doesn’t write a paper to try to advance a political point, they should be doing OBJECTIVE research…science just lays out the info and observations, it’s up to the politicians to decide which side the scientists are on and to do studies about the political position scientists take…all the 528 scientific papers should have been in the NEUTRAL category you idiot

    Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 1:57 pm ¶

Post a Comment