| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2007 02:50:22 PM · #326 |
| My best friend was working on the Papua New Guinea delegation... I haven't had a chance to talk to her about the experience yet except to hear that it was frustrating, and that the US is spectacularly out of line with the rest of the world. I'll write more when I know more. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:32:34 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
job well done.
|
I am so used to being on the other side of arguments with you that I thought for a second you were commending Bush. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:34:10 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
job well done.
|
I am so used to being on the other side of arguments with you that I thought for a second you were commending Bush. ;) |
I'm still not sure if I'm sarcastic about that comment or not. I guess we'll see what happens in a couple of years when something is actually agreed upon. It's my crazy right wing political views coming in.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 15:35:21. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:39:00 PM · #329 |
I'm sure all the Bush haters will say it's not enough, but Bush intends to sign this:
//www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TK1E2G4&show_article=1
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:49:30 PM · #330 |
I'll have to do some reading... It's a hard call in some ways because I do support tougher CAFE standards but politically it's also a concession to keep debate away from the real fundamental systemic change that needs to happen to really solve things, which the Dems don't want to touch any more than the republicans do.
So yes, I'll say it's not enough (not because I'm a Bush hater - it's a democratic bill after all) but it is a positive step. I'm not clear on whether it fixes the designation of light trucks (currently large SUVs, which are used and marketed like minivans, are regulated as utility vehicles, which is dumb).
The problem is not a US one, per se, but as the richest and one of the most polluting nations we have zero credibility with the rest of the world unless we're willing to make some pretty basic changes here at home. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:09:10 PM · #331 |
What totally annoyed me about this bill is that he said he would veto it if the 10 billion dollars in incentives to oil companies that were given a few years a go were taken away. I just cannot wrap my mind around this.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 08:48:55 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What totally annoyed me about this bill is that he said he would veto it if the 10 billion dollars in incentives to oil companies that were given a few years a go were taken away. I just cannot wrap my mind around this. |
What can't you rap your mind around ? It seems pretty straight forward. Bush is pro oil companies and goes out of his way to help keep them profitable as they are balancing on the brink. Don't you realise how close they are to bankruptcy ?
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 09:14:32 AM · #333 |
Thanks for proving my point.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 09:16:30 AM · #334 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Thanks for proving my point. |
which point was that ? |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:26:05 AM · #335 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Thanks for proving my point. |
which point was that ? |
If I answer that, you will argue with me. Lets just end it with a thank you.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:39:33 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Thanks for proving my point. |
which point was that ? |
If I answer that, you will argue with me. Lets just end it with a thank you. |
Fair enough. You Hilary lovers are all the same. Thank you. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 11:45:38 AM · #337 |
Just out....
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
"This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. " |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:31:55 PM · #338 |
Oi, now I'm going to start cussing. All I have to say to the minority page bloggers there in the senate is "show us the *$&#! data!" We have lots of quotes from people as if quotes mean anything in the scientific world. Finally at the very bottom we get some links to papers. I click on the first one that looks promising (about the solar irradiance being more of a factor than we assume). First, it links to a blog. Not a paper. A blog. But luckily the blog links to the real paper, but not before I see another link which leads to a page where realclimate.org destroys the paper by poking more holes in it than swiss cheese. Now leaving aside who is just spouting propaganda and who isn't, shouldn't the senate page put the evidence at the TOP of the page and shouldn't they provide links to the ACTUAL study?
Man, that's my tax dollars at work....
Message edited by author 2008-10-21 10:29:49. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 01:25:55 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
but not before I see another link which leads to a page where realclimate.org destroys the paper by poking more holes in it than swiss cheese. |
Since when does a website poke holes in a peer reviewed paper. This is like placing your trust in a blog, isn't it? Remember in the beginning of this thread that you and others didn't want to see any information that wasn't from a peer reviewed work?
So now we see links to peer reviewed papers and you complain about how the links are made and where they are positioned. Oi, I should be cussing! :)
I read the same paper that you just spoke about. When I came back here I expected a reply out of you and I was not disappointed. I just figured it would take a day or two! I think your opinions on climate change parallel those you hold on gun control. The discussion's over in your mind. No opposing viewpoint allowed. On the other hand I would like to see humanity try to lower CO2 emissions as much as possible without disrupting the world economy. But I'm ready to admit that even this might be wrong. Maybe those emissions perform a valuable positive feedback function.
Controlling the number of humans that live on this rock. Ultimately to control CO2, that is what you must control.
So stop yer cussing doc. :) I sure hope I never find out you run a blog.
I'll tease you unmercifully. :) |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 01:41:18 PM · #340 |
Yes, that's why I took a step back and said, "Now leaving aside who is just spouting propaganda and who isn't" because you are right. realclimate.org could be the ones spouting the propaganda (and their piece is hardly written in an unbiased tone).
I'm trying to get through the actual article, but to tell you the truth, it's a little over my head.
Edit to add: I guess my beef was more with the page than a specific study (as I haven't read them yet). I find it to more likely fall into the realm of propaganda when you mention "400 scientists", get quotes from 24 of them and then link 6 studies. Notice the falloff in numbers there?
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 13:43:55.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 01:54:59 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm trying to get through the actual article, but to tell you the truth, it's a little over my head. |
It's certainly interesting, but to really understand what's going on I suspect you need to be very intimate with the various climate models discussed. It's like a bag of worms. I've read about one of the models and it's explanation covers 100 times the text of the solar forcing one! One thing I find interesting in the initial paper is the concept of a delay in the effect of the solar forcing and speculation that Tau=10, which I'm assuming is 10 years. This is almost the length of a average solar sun-spot cycle. In my local weather I've noticed in the past that our warmest winters seem to be about 10 to 15 years after the last solar maximum. But so many other factors influence local weather conditions I'm sure it means nothing. If yer wondering why I would even know about sunspots and the solar cycle, I'm a ham radio operator. Many spots means great long distance HF communications.
We're at a null right now. Pretty crappy comms. :( |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 01:56:59 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Edit to add: I guess my beef was more with the page than a specific study (as I haven't read them yet). I find it to more likely fall into the realm of propaganda when you mention "400 scientists", get quotes from 24 of them and then link 6 studies. Notice the falloff in numbers there? |
Yup, I noticed that. About the same falloff as with the UN propaganda. :( |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 02:01:55 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Edit to add: I guess my beef was more with the page than a specific study (as I haven't read them yet). I find it to more likely fall into the realm of propaganda when you mention "400 scientists", get quotes from 24 of them and then link 6 studies. Notice the falloff in numbers there? |
Though you probably need to consider the author count on those papers. It isn't entirely uncommon for academic papers to have the first couple of pages just be lists of contributing authors. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 02:06:57 PM · #344 |
Using this article as an example, here's why I think there is a ton of spin on the minority senate page.
The quote from the Senate page:
"The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.”"
Here are a few quotes from the actual paper (and I'm trying not to cherry pick here):
"On the other hand, as Figure 5b shows, if we adopt MOBERG05, which shows a larger secular variability during the preindustrial era, the climate is found to be quite sensitive to solar variation. As deduced from Figure 5b, MOBERG05 shows that from the 17th century minimum to 1900 AD the NH warmed by about 0.4K. The Sun might have contributed at most 0.35K during the preindustrial era (1600–1900) and 0.4 K from 1900 to 2005. Thus the Sun could have contributed roughly 4/8 = 50% of the global NH surface warming that occurred from 1900 to 2005. Since 1950 the Sun might have contributed 0.05K (0.5/6 = 8% of the warming) using LEAN2000, or 0.15K (1.5/6 = 25% of the warming) using WANG2005. Again these estimates might present an 20% error." (The capitalized words such as MOBERG05 are, I believe, different models for climate change.)
And later...
"Therefore our estimates about the solar effect on climate might be overestimated and should be considered as an upper limit. However, the relative error should be much larger with MANN03 than with MOBERG05."
The paper does a decent job of presenting data and listing possible limitations of the interpretation. But we go from that to "an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears". Perhaps it's my own bias, but I see that as a hefty dose of spin.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 14:09:21.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 02:09:58 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Edit to add: I guess my beef was more with the page than a specific study (as I haven't read them yet). I find it to more likely fall into the realm of propaganda when you mention "400 scientists", get quotes from 24 of them and then link 6 studies. Notice the falloff in numbers there? |
Though you probably need to consider the author count on those papers. It isn't entirely uncommon for academic papers to have the first couple of pages just be lists of contributing authors. |
Good point. I've only looked at the first paper. It has 2 authors.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 02:21:12 PM · #346 |
This was passed onto me concerning the author of the Senate minority blog piece...
from sourcewatch.org
"Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.
Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine." [2] "
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 02:23:02 PM · #347 |
| "poke" to light this thread up in my profile, sorry |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 04:22:48 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This was passed onto me concerning the author of the Senate minority blog piece...
from sourcewatch.org
"Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change sceptics.
Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine." [2] " |
Don't feel bad...Al Gore is mad too.
//www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/844993096/1001 |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 05:58:01 PM · #349 |
Had fun looking at this link.
Of course I'm sure the author got fuel at an Exxon station at 10 percent off. :) |
|
|
|
02/26/2008 11:04:00 PM · #350 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 06:49:27 AM EDT.
