Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real
Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,905 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Oh, and my comment about certainty/uncertainty was directed at those who spout political certainty based on scientific uncertainty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 1 2011, 03:59 AM
No, I was responding to what you said about cycles, that the data doesn't support it, that its unknown. Kind of hard to argue anything from that.

Man's a part of the environment and can't help but contribute to it. How much, we don't know.
Come on Chris, you know better than that. How do you take:

"The problem is that no one is sure what drives these cycles. Why, after millions of years, did the earth start a period of glaciation about 2 million years ago?"

And then claim I said the "the data doesn't support it." What data doesn't support what and what is "it?"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 1 2011, 04:04 AM
Oh, and my comment about certainty/uncertainty was directed at those who spout political certainty based on scientific uncertainty.
Since you were addressing a post from me, where have I ever claimed political certainty based on scientific uncertainty?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 1 2011, 04:06 AM
Chris
Nov 1 2011, 04:04 AM
Oh, and my comment about certainty/uncertainty was directed at those who spout political certainty based on scientific uncertainty.
Since you were addressing a post from me, where have I ever claimed political certainty based on scientific uncertainty?
Because you brought up uncertainty. The context of what I say follows what you say. You'd said "Claiming today's warming is just one of those cycles is unsupportable by facts." So that should answer your questions "What data doesn't support what and what is "it?"" I add that the converse is also the case, claiming today's warming in not just one of those cycles is also unsupportable by facts. No one is certain what the causes are. Would you buy a car or a house based on that much uncertainty, I doubt it, so why should we ask the state to spend billions on the politicization of science?

The problem here is one side is claiming certainty based on fudged data. What was it Twain said about statistics?
Edited by Chris, Nov 1 2011, 04:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
No one is certain what the causes are. Would you buy a car or a house based on that much uncertainty, I doubt it, so why should we ask the state to spend billions on the politicization of science?

Only the US Right is politicizing science Chris.

And I'm not really asking the state to start spending a few billion on the politicization of science. I'm asking the state to AVOID spending QUADRILLIONS on trying to overcome the devastating effects of Business as Usual.

The US Right is willing to spend any amount of taxpayer dollars just to support their twisted agenda - they keep claiming that they're "conservatives", but this topic alone shows what liars they are.

We know EXACTLY what the causes are.

I could produce (and have produced) Hundreds of articles, all solid science, which show human caused CO2 is the cause of recent warming.

But this graph proves it all in one step:
Posted Image

Temperatures are rising in lockstep with rising CO2 levels.

Until you can find ANY other cause that can match temps as closely, you don't have a fact to stand on.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 1 2011, 05:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ZZZZZZZZ!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sea Dog
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Jim Miller
Nov 1 2011, 05:32 AM
ZZZZZZZZ!
No sand to stick your head in, Jim?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Thanks for that thoughtful and detailed reply, Jim.

It is that sort of careful consideration and discussion of the facts that prove I was right when I decided to leave this forum. And I apologize to myself for coming back.

In fact, Jim, I shouldn't pick on you, and I will apologize to you.

At least your honesty in admitting you're ignoring the truth is principled, unlike Chris, who has already proven he can't or won't read the facts given to him, and continues to post already disproven graphs..

Look at his erroneous post #3 written by a known error-prone Denier, Curry, and repeated by a proven liar, Delingpole.

I posted the facts on #6. which completely destroy every assertion she made.

Chris chose to call the descriptions "Ad Hom", without ever checking whether those descriptions were accurate or not, and ignoring the science entirely.

Then, since he had ignored the truth, he posted the same garbage on #19, claiming nobody had answered the first post.

I guess the truth is nobody answered it the way Chris wanted it answered.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 1 2011, 05:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 1 2011, 01:09 AM
Texas Scorched by Worst Drought in 50 Years: "The state's worst drought made the record books for its longevity, spanning a seven-year period during the 1950s. This drought, state weather officials say, is more notable for its intensity." OK, but word around here is it will last only one or two more years.

And then there's Drought History of Texas
Quote:
 
...I thought it would be interesting to pull the data to see how abnormal the current situation is versus the history of drought in Texas. Accordingly, I went to the National Climatic Data Center and obtained the data for the Palmer Drought Severity Index for Texas in March. That data goes back to 1895 and looks like this:

Posted Image

I've circled March 2011, so you can see how it compares to the history.

Recall the meaning of the PDSI, in which values of -2 to -3 are "moderate drought", -3 to -4 are "severe drought", and -4 and below are "extreme drought". So the current value of about -3.2 is indeed a severe drought. At least if the PDSI is to be believed, it's not unprecedented however: I count 15 different years which have had a lower PDSI in March than 2011.

I've also added a trendline, which you will note slopes upward (ie to wetter conditions). However, a regression comes up with a slope of 0.0056 ± 0.0075 PDSI units/year - ie. the trend is smaller than the uncertainty and so it's not a statistically significant trend. At any rate, there certainly is no evidence in the record that Texas is getting drier overall (at least in March, at least so far)....

Those are the facts, the data, and that's a logical conclusion.
And you missed them all.

The facts are indisputible. This was the worst drought ever experienced in Texas. Not even close. I CALL THAT IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS.

Compare what Texas looked like in midsummer vs what you posted:
Posted Image
Perhaps ignorance is the wrong word.

The data is also indisputable. But of course, you posted a cherry picked graph, dated to April, before the worst of the drought had even started. I CALL THAT DELIBERATE DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH.

And when you add to that the extreme weather experienced all over the world this year, the only logical conclusion is that you would prefer to destroy everything just to continue worshiping your "Dead Hand".

You want some more proof of that?

Climate Progress
 
Catastrophic $5.3 Billion Texas Drought Hits Global Cotton, Beef, Peanut Butter and Even Pumpkin Market

By Stephen Lacey on Oct 31, 2011 at 5:50 pm

In August, agronomists showed that the historic drought in Texas had caused a stunning $5.3 billion in losses in the agricultural sector. Two months later, even with some rain finally coming to the state, Texas farmers are being crippled by a drought that could stretch beyond next summer.

As the economic losses pile up, they are having an impact on global commodities like cotton and beef — stretching this crisis well beyond the state of Texas, and showing just how “global” the problem of global warming truly is. Kate Galbraith reported on the “catastrophic crought” for the New York Times:
Quote:
 
Some of the farthest-reaching effects may be on world cotton markets. Texas produces about 50 percent of U.S. cotton, and the United States in turn grows between 18 and 25 percent of the world’s cotton, according to Darren Hudson, director of the Cotton Economics Research Institute at Texas Tech University. This year, however, yields even from irrigated crops have fallen about 60 percent on the high plains where the bulk of Texas’s cotton crop grows, Mr. Hudson said. Farmers have given up on their “dry-land,” or unirrigated, cotton crops.

And it’s not just cotton. A terrible peanut crop will soon result in significantly higher costs for peanut-butter products; pumpkin prices have also spiked due to a shortage from Texas; and beef prices are likely to rise due to the crisis:

Quote:
 
Many Texas ranchers are selling off large parts of their herds as the grass dries out and water becomes scarce. Some are buying hay from farms a thousand miles away, despite the high cost of shipping.

The sell-off of cattle because of the Southwestern drought could push already-high beef prices higher during the coming years, according to Kevin Good, a senior market analyst at CattleFax, a company that does market analysis for the cattle industry. That is because many cattle are headed to the slaughterhouses now, reducing future supply.


Since the record-setting drought began, the Texas Agrilife Extension Service reports that the livestock industry in Texas has seen more than $2 billion in losses, and the cotton industry has seen $1.8 billion in losses. Climate change will only make such drastic economic losses worse, sending larger ripples through the global economy.

Meanwhile, Texas Governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry continues to call efforts to lower climate-change inducing greenhouse gasses “job killers.”


Q.E.D.
Edited by Brewster, Nov 1 2011, 06:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Signing off. Those that are willing to accept the facts already know the truth.

The rest will never learn. They won't even try.

Go to it Chris. I'm sure you can find many more liars Deluded Fools Deniers undeterred by facts that you can quote.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis