American Physical Society essentially tells its members...

Message

themanintheseersuckersuit · #26 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:06 pm

ulysses5019 wrote:
AnnieCamaro wrote:
eyégor wrote:And in conclusion, a list of things caused by global warming

A complete list of things caused by global warming....

One word jumped out at me -- Squirrels!
Squirrels will survive. Didn't you see Ice Age?

The problem listed is "squirrels reproduce earlier", which means increased global warming will cause an increase in squirrel porn and the squirrel birth rate.

silvercamaro · #27 Post by **silvercamaro** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:23 pm

The following is an anecdotal sociological observation related to the topic of this thread, not scientific evidence supporting nor contradicting the central thesis of the cited articles.

On my local university campus, we have a strong College of Geosciences, which includes an excellent School of Meteorology with an academic faculty worthy of respect. The members of that faculty differ in their conclusions about the significance of the actions of mankind to long-range climate change. The president of the University appears to give preference to the faculty members who support the arguments of the "man causes global warming" lobby, as measured by university recognition, awards, salary incentives, and, perhaps, tenure and promotions.

The president is not a scientist. The president is a politician.

smilergrogan · #28 Post by **smilergrogan** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:53 pm

silvercamaro wrote:
On my local university campus, we have a strong College of Geosciences, which includes an excellent School of Meteorology with an academic faculty worthy of respect. The members of that faculty differ in their conclusions about the significance of the actions of mankind to long-range climate change. The president of the University appears to give preference to the faculty members who support the arguments of the "man causes global warming" lobby, as measured by university recognition, awards, salary incentives, and, perhaps, tenure and promotions.

The president is not a scientist. The president is a politician.

Wow, the university president gets to dictate faculty recognition, awards, salary incentives, and perhaps tenure and promotions? That's one busy president, scientist or not. Most places, the president just tries to raise money.

ulysses5019 · #29 Post by **ulysses5019** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:56 pm

smilergrogan wrote:
silvercamaro wrote:
On my local university campus, we have a strong College of Geosciences, which includes an excellent School of Meteorology with an academic faculty worthy of respect. The members of that faculty differ in their conclusions about the significance of the actions of mankind to long-range climate change. The president of the University appears to give preference to the faculty members who support the arguments of the "man causes global warming" lobby, as measured by university recognition, awards, salary incentives, and, perhaps, tenure and promotions.

The president is not a scientist. The president is a politician.
Wow, the university president gets to dictate faculty recognition, awards, salary incentives, and perhaps tenure and promotions? That's one busy president, scientist or not. Most places, the president just tries to raise money.

And some just go to football games.

ulysses5019 · #30 Post by **ulysses5019** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:57 pm

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
ulysses5019 wrote:
AnnieCamaro wrote: One word jumped out at me -- Squirrels!
Squirrels will survive. Didn't you see Ice Age?
The problem listed is "squirrels reproduce earlier", which means increased global warming will cause an increase in squirrel porn and the squirrel birth rate.

And?

NSAS · #31 Post by **NSAS** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:52 pm

ulysses5019 wrote:
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
ulysses5019 wrote: Squirrels will survive. Didn't you see Ice Age?
The problem listed is "squirrels reproduce earlier", which means increased global warming will cause an increase in squirrel porn and the squirrel birth rate.

And?

That's right global warming is a good thing, (except for the victimization of the squirrels by the porn industry)

themanintheseersuckersuit · #32 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:46 pm

World's Greatest Deliberative Body tackles the CLIMATE CRISIS with stirring debate

SPENCER: In conclusion, I am predicting today that the theory that mankind is mostly responsible for global warming will slowly fade away in the coming years, as will the warming itself, and I trust you would agree, Madam Chair, that such a result deserves to be greeted with relief. That concludes my testimony, and I’d be willing to answer any questions.

BOXER: Okay. I also want to point out on that on your own blog you said you never were told you couldn’t speak about your scientific views. And lastly, I guess is a certain congratulations, Rush Limbaugh referred to you as the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Excellence in Broadcasting Network.

SPENCER: Yeah, that’s tongue-in-cheek reference.

BOXER: Right. But I just want to point that out for people to understand. I just want to make sure everybody knows what’s really happening.

Dr. Spencer's testimony can be found here

kayrharris · #33 Post by **kayrharris** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:47 pm

Here's a new one. Squirrels on crack! I'm not kidding.....

http://www.blazingtalons.com/2005/10/sq ... -good.html

Jeemie · #34 Post by **Jeemie** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:13 am

SportsFan68 wrote:
MarleysGh0st wrote:Are we making this a generic government & science rant thread now, Sprots?
No.

Good question, though. Thanks, Marley.

We're railing against Desert Rock. Not very well, I mght add.

The people trying to get an injunction to build it don't even have standing to bring the suit, and yet they're being taken seriously at every turn. It's SO MUCH MONEY they're impossible to ignore. Wind and solar power would get the same results with 1% of the pollution (I just made up those stats, but I have seen data which says those numbers are close), yet they're so easy to ignore because there's no big money in it for anybody. The only big money is if you count the cumulative savings of millions of people who would pay less for energy.

Wind is getting close, but it is not as cheap as coal to generate power yet.

Solar is nowhere near as cheap as coal to gernate electricity with, so I'm really not sure where you're getting your numbers that your pocketbooks would be helped by having a solar or wind power plant built over a coal-fired plant.

Besides, the government seems just as happy to hold up renewable energy plants as well as fossil fuel-powered plants.

ne1410s · #35 Post by **ne1410s** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:10 am

Doctor: You have cancer.

You: Well, that is just nature taking its course. Nothing we can do or should do about it.

We ARE the friggin' frog in the kettle!! Ooh, Ooh, and wait until the methane trapped in permafrost escapes--it makes carbon dioxide look like a playground bully by comparison. I got yur greenhouse right here...

Boiling Mad Frog · #36 Post by **Boiling Mad Frog** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:32 am

ne1410s wrote:Doctor: You have cancer.

You: Well, that is just nature taking its course. Nothing we can do or should do about it.

We ARE the friggin' frog in the kettle!! Ooh, Ooh, and wait until the methane trapped in permafrost escapes--it makes carbon dioxide look like a playground bully by comparison. I got yur greenhouse right here...

I get so angry that you think we are so stupid.

The boiled-frog myth: stop the lying now!

ulysses5019 · #37 Post by **ulysses5019** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:36 am

Boiling Mad Frog wrote:
ne1410s wrote:Doctor: You have cancer.

You: Well, that is just nature taking its course. Nothing we can do or should do about it.

We ARE the friggin' frog in the kettle!! Ooh, Ooh, and wait until the methane trapped in permafrost escapes--it makes carbon dioxide look like a playground bully by comparison. I got yur greenhouse right here...
I get so angry that you think we are so stupid.

The boiled-frog myth: stop the lying now!

I think you'd be in more danger on the back porch of an Oklahoma home.

SportsFan68 · #38 Post by **SportsFan68** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:40 am

Jeemie wrote: Wind is getting cloase, but it is not as cheap as coal to generate power yet.

Solar is nowhere near as cheap as coal to gernate electricity with, so I'm really not sure where you're getting your numbers that your pocketbooks would be helped by having a solar or wind power plant built over a coal-fired plant.

Besides, the government seems just as happy to hold up renewable energy plants as well as fossil fuel-powered plants.

I got it from a college-based research project which was commissioned by opponents to Desert Rock, so all y'all who require peer-reviewed journal articles or it doesn't count should disregard those remarks.

themanintheseersuckersuit · #39 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:55 am

SportsFan68 wrote:
Jeemie wrote: Wind is getting cloase, but it is not as cheap as coal to generate power yet.

Solar is nowhere near as cheap as coal to gernate electricity with, so I'm really not sure where you're getting your numbers that your pocketbooks would be helped by having a solar or wind power plant built over a coal-fired plant.

Besides, the government seems just as happy to hold up renewable energy plants as well as fossil fuel-powered plants.
I got it from a college-based research project which was commissioned by opponents to Desert Rock, so all y'all who require peer-reviewed journal articles or it doesn't count should disregard those remarks.

I would be interested in reading the study you mention if you have a cite.

Jeemie · #40 Post by **Jeemie** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:57 am

SportsFan68 wrote:
Jeemie wrote: Wind is getting cloase, but it is not as cheap as coal to generate power yet.

Solar is nowhere near as cheap as coal to gernate electricity with, so I'm really not sure where you're getting your numbers that your pocketbooks would be helped by having a solar or wind power plant built over a coal-fired plant.

Besides, the government seems just as happy to hold up renewable energy plants as well as fossil fuel-powered plants.
I got it from a college-based research project which was commissioned by opponents to Desert Rock, so all y'all who require peer-reviewed journal articles or it doesn't count should disregard those remarks.

Actually, I'd like to see this study as well, if available.

I wonder if they were estimating the cost of externalities that aren't currently allocated to the cost of fossil fuels.

Jeemie · #41 Post by **Jeemie** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:00 am

ne1410s wrote:Doctor: You have cancer.

You: Well, that is just nature taking its course. Nothing we can do or should do about it.

We ARE the friggin' frog in the kettle!! Ooh, Ooh, and wait until the methane trapped in permafrost escapes--it makes carbon dioxide look like a playground bully by comparison. I got yur greenhouse right here...

It's this type of thinking that I'm talking about- the marginalizing of anyone who has reasons to doubt AGW, and who has articulated those reasons.

We are making and are going to continue to make very important policy decisions that will cost TONS of money based on the AGW assertion.

So wouldn't be nice to actually have a real debate on the matter instead of trying to shut one side or the other up?

mrkelley23 · #42 Post by **mrkelley23** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:20 am

I think this is the study to which Sprots refers:

http://www.dinecare.org/pages/powerplants.html

Since I was the one who pressed Sprots so unmercifully on the "peer-review" issue wrt secondhand smoke, I will stay mute on this one, except for this:

Peer reviewed or not, I am even more skeptical of a study, commissioned by a special interest group, which "happens" to find results that exactly mirror the interest group's stand on an issue. And this is true whether the issue is renewable energy, or global warming, or the dangers of tobacco smoke, or the voting attitudes of the people in Midwestern states.

ne1410s · #43 Post by **ne1410s** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:37 pm

I get so angry that you think we are so stupid.

I don't think WE are stupid. (And just who are you the spokesperson for?)

I think YOU are misguided if you don't believe the data...

mrkelley23 · #44 Post by **mrkelley23** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:52 pm

ne1410s wrote:
I get so angry that you think we are so stupid.
I don't think WE are stupid. (And just who are you the spokesperson for?)

I think YOU are misguided if you don't believe the data...

Er, Tennisguy, I think that was a MM taking a pointy stick to the boiled frog metaphor only. Even though he or she may agree or disagree with the science on Climate Change, the science on the boiled frog myth is pretty clear, a the link shows. And the "author" of the post was Boiled Mad Frog, so I think that's who he considers himself the spokesfrog for.

#45 Post by **eyégor** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:07 pm

ne1410s wrote:
I get so angry that you think we are so stupid.
I don't think WE are stupid. (And just who are you the spokesperson for?)

I think YOU are misguided if you don't believe the data...

But believing the data is the point. You have to believe the data on faith.

Kevin Trenberth and the NCAR refuse to release the algorithm used to modify the raw data to compensate for the changes in the environment surrounding the data collection pointsto the scientific community. This can be significant. 100 years ago, the station in Tuscon was in a dusty cowtown. Now it is downtown in a major city.

I have seen it alleged by a reputable source that all but half a degree Celsius of the temperature increase since 1950 is attributable to these calculations.

I wish I could put my finger on the study where I gleaned this information. I believe TMITSSS pointed me (and the rest of the bored) toward it.

themanintheseersuckersuit · #46 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:24 pm

eyégor wrote:
ne1410s wrote:
I get so angry that you think we are so stupid.
I don't think WE are stupid. (And just who are you the spokesperson for?)

I think YOU are misguided if you don't believe the data...
But believing the data is the point. You have to believe the data on faith.

Kevin Trenberth and the NCAR refuse to release the algorithm used to modify the raw data to compensate for the changes in the environment surrounding the data collection pointsto the scientific community. This can be significant. 100 years ago, the station in Tuscon was in a dusty cowtown. Now it is downtown in a major city.

I have seen it alleged by a reputable source that all but half a degree Celsius of the temperature increase since 1950 is attributable to these calculations.

I wish I could put my finger on the study where I gleaned this information. I believe TMITSSS pointed me (and the rest of the bored) toward it.

I can't point to it now, but its buried somewhere in climateaudit.org or http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

etaoin22 · #47 Post by **etaoin22** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:46 pm

It sounds as if the Newsletter asked for an open-ended discussion without the formal restraints used in the assessment of original research papers.

Which might be reasonable.

But, it is a fine distinction to make, and one which might not be clear to those not obligated to read research journals as part of everyday life.

Thus....

Had a disclaimer not been added, the vast resources for disinformation of the so-called climate change skeptics could and might well have been used tp claim that the American Physical Society was in agreement with their POV.

SportsFan68 · #48 Post by **SportsFan68** » Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:22 am

mrkelley23 wrote:I think this is the study to which Sprots refers:

http://www.dinecare.org/pages/powerplants.html

Since I was the one who pressed Sprots so unmercifully on the "peer-review" issue wrt secondhand smoke, I will stay mute on this one, except for this:

Peer reviewed or not, I am even more skeptical of a study, commissioned by a special interest group, which "happens" to find results that exactly mirror the interest group's stand on an issue. And this is true whether the issue is renewable energy, or global warming, or the dangers of tobacco smoke, or the voting attitudes of the people in Midwestern states.

I agree with everything Mrkelley says here, including that he bugged me unmercifully about the peer review issue. Thanks for fessing up.

It was supposed to bug Jeemie but was pretty lame. I didn't press him unmercifully very well.

Well done on finding the study, MrK. It gains a lot seeing it in person with earnest young people presenting Power Points and adding the drama of hearing from people who can trace their lineage of place back thousands of years, unlike most of the people in the audience, who could get back maybe 100 years or so, maybe less, maybe a little more.