PDA

View Full Version : 'Climate change' cultists vs. scientific evidence



RodB
09-20-2013, 07:45 PM
Oh Yeah....

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/20/climate-change-cultists-vs-scientific-evidence/



There is a tradition in politics that is similar to one in the legal profession: When evidence supports your position, make your argument based on the evidence, but when it argues against your position, ignore the evidence and appeal to emotion.The evidence is piling up that "climate change," formerly known as "global warming," is losing evidentiary support, despite recent "preliminary findings" by a group of "experts" from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that a Washington Post editorial suggests may prove, "warming has boosted the chances, in some cases significantly, that certain unwelcome weather or weather-related disasters will occur." The Post and other "true believers" ignore or ridicule a growing body of evidence rebutting their beliefs.Most bad weather -- from hurricanes, which have been few this season, to tornadoes -- are unwelcome by those in their paths, but these weather phenomena have existed for centuries.Both sides seem to agree that CO2 levels are elevated, but they don't agree on whether that will cause dangerous climate change, including rising temperatures and turbulent weather. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) argues, "The human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs."
The climate change cultists continue to focus on melting polar ice caps and "displaced" polar bears as part of their emotional appeal for government to "fix" the problem.



Yet the climate change cultists continue to focus on melting polar ice caps and "displaced" polar bears as part of their emotional appeal for government to "fix" the problem. Now comes a report in the UK Daily Mail that "eminent scientists" have observed a record return of the Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60 percent in a year, covering with ice almost 1 million more square miles of ocean than in 2012.In 2007, the BBC reported that by 2013, global warming would leave the Arctic "ice free."Oops!Just how silly this is getting is an assertion by some activists that the current tensions in Syria might be linked to climate change. That's not as harebrained as a newspaper report in January 1933, which said, "Yo-Yo Banned in Syria, Blamed for Drought by Moslems." The Syrians of 1933 actually believed the up and down of a toy yo-yo affected the weather. If it went down and sprang right back up, rain. If it went down and didn't spring up, drought. Police reportedly patrolled the streets, confiscating the toy. Ridiculous? Not as ridiculous as some of the junk science coming out of climate research circles today.Last March, the Daily Mail reported that global temperatures are about to drop "below the level that the (computer) models forecast with '90 percent certainty.'"Marc Morano, a former staff member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (whose web page climatedepot.com offers numerous scientific articles debunking climate change), emails me: "As a long observer of the global weather movement, I can say that the events of 2013 (have) been one of the most devastating to the movement. Both poles have record expanding ice. Global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are near record low activity ... 2013 may be the year in which man-made global warming fears enter the dustbin of history."I doubt it. Too many people have too much invested in perpetuating this fiction. Billions of dollars and other currencies have been diverted into "green" projects in a Chicken Little attempt to stop the sky from falling. The BBC reports it as fact in virtually every story it does on the environment. Ditto the American media. Most media ignore evidence that counters climate change proponents.Former Vice President Al Gore has made a personal fortune promoting the cult of global warming, a cult being partially defined as a belief system that ignores proof contrary to its beliefs.
Perhaps the climate change counter-revolutionaries should adopt the yo-yo as their symbol and send Gore and his apostles a box of them.(Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribune.com.)Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas (http://www.twitter.com/calthomas)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png</em><em>. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.comhttp://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/20/climate-change-cultists-vs-scientific-evidence/#ixzz2fTnT5tzV

Chris Coose
09-20-2013, 07:48 PM
Fox.
tee-hee.

You're on a roll tonight Rod.

Arizona Bay
09-20-2013, 07:49 PM
Remarkable...

Ian McColgin
09-20-2013, 08:00 PM
For actual science reporting, try something like: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-hits-6th-lowest-level-on-record-16492

switters
09-20-2013, 08:04 PM
"When evidence supports your position, make your argument based on the evidence, but when it argues against your position, ignore the evidence and appeal to emotion."

If science had been allowed to prevail instead of the emotional hippies, climate science would be settled. And the result would be a belief in anthropogenic climate change that is equal to the belief in gravity and a round earth.

Highlighting polar bears was a mistake, so is polar ice cap watching. Recording the growing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, understanding its role as a green house gas, and understanding where the rise is coming from should have been stressed since the beginning. Just because some people falsely blame AGW on everything does not mean it doesn't exist.

Flying Orca
09-20-2013, 08:57 PM
Oh, kee-rist on a tuna roll. The NIPCC? Really? Fred Singer is a notorious shill who went from Big Tobacco to Big Oil like a cheap whore at a truck stop. The guy has absolutely no scientific credibility.

I'd heard Faux News was bad, but that article is even worse that the tripe they print in our local tabloids. I can't believe people like Rod fall for ... well, yeah, I guess I can. Confirmation bias and all that.

Keith Wilson
09-20-2013, 08:57 PM
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) argues,Heh! Cute, very cute. Make the name close enough and maybe they'll think it's the real thing. Sort of like this:

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/28/41862746_0112343a4f.jpg

PeterSibley
09-20-2013, 09:07 PM
Oh, kee-rist on a tuna roll. The NIPCC? Really? Fred Singer is a notorious shill who went from Big Tobacco to Big Oil like a cheap whore at a truck stop. The guy has absolutely no scientific credibility.

I'd heard Faux News was bad, but that article is even worse that the tripe they print in our local tabloids. I can't believe people like Rod fall for ... well, yeah, I guess I can. Confirmation bias and all that.

It's perfectly aimed.

LeeG
09-20-2013, 09:17 PM
Idiots, stupid, effing idiots

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-20-2013, 09:28 PM
Is it time for "Friday Night Flagellation", Rod?
Or is this is a pledge prank to get you into a Right-wing fraternity?
BTW, Repub legislators are threatening to shut down the government. If they are successful you will have more pressing things to worry about.

RodB
09-20-2013, 09:42 PM
:D:D:D

Things are turning around... but you guys will continue to deny it untill your ass is froze..:D:D



Glen... you need to join a forum for people who just like to personally attack each other...

RodB

Flying Orca
09-20-2013, 09:46 PM
The evidence is piling up that "climate change," formerly known as "global warming," is losing evidentiary support

Lie number one. In fact, the confidence with which we can state that climate change is happening and is largely driven by human activity has increased since the Fourth Assessment Report was released, and this increased confidence is clearly stated in the advance release of the first portion of the Fifth Assessment report.


despite recent "preliminary findings" by a group of "experts" from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that a Washington Post editorial suggests may prove, "warming has boosted the chances, in some cases significantly, that certain unwelcome weather or weather-related disasters will occur."

"Why" the "quotes", "Cal"? NOAA does employ experts, and IIRC, that's what their preliminary findings stated. Random "quotes" help neither your "style" nor your "cause" - they just make you look "stupid" and "immature".


The Post and other "true believers" ignore or ridicule a growing body of evidence rebutting their beliefs.

Lie number two. There is no "growing body of evidence" rebutting the science of climate change... at least in the scientific literature. Maybe ol' Cal's looking in the wrong place.


The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) argues, "The human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs."

Fred Singer... 'nuff said.



...the climate change cultists...


So people who give credence to established science are "cultists" now, are they? Yeah, that whole gravity cult, man, it's just so... so... cult-like.


Now comes a report in the UK Daily Mail that "eminent scientists" have observed a record return of the Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60 percent in a year, covering with ice almost 1 million more square miles of ocean than in 2012.

Yet another tiny, cherry-picked data point from a larger dataset that clearly supports the science of global warming, and to top it off, this one was debunked here in the Bilge less than a week ago! Is there an echo chamber in here, or just the emptiness between the ears of Faux News' devotees?


Just how silly this is getting is an assertion by some activists that the current tensions in Syria might be linked to climate change.

And why not? Climate change is thought to be a major driver in sub-Saharan drought, migration, and political upheaval in east Africa.


Not as ridiculous as some of the junk science coming out of climate research circles today.Last March, the Daily Mail reported that global temperatures are about to drop "below the level that the (computer) models forecast with '90 percent certainty.'

Ah yes, that celebrated scientific journal, the Daily Mail. (Not that ol' Cal would know a reliable source if it bit his arse - the guy IS an evangelical Christian, after all....)


Marc Morano, a former staff member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, emails me: "As a long observer of the global weather movement, I can say that the events of 2013 (have) been one of the most devastating to the movement. Both poles have record expanding ice. Global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are near record low activity ... 2013 may be the year in which man-made global warming fears enter the dustbin of history."

Well, those are simply outstanding credentials - I mean, a former staff member of a committee! Imagine that! - but his e-mail is a tad disingenuous. Yes, ice growth is up - but ice extent and thickness continue their overall downward plunge in the arctic, and if he were an honest man, he'd acknowledge it. Antarctic surface is spreading, probably due to changing wind patterns (as published this week), but that doesn't invalidate the science of climate change. Overall global temperatures have continued to rise, although raw atmospheric temperatures have not; the warming signal is clear in ocean temperatures and appears even in atmospheric temperature data once short-term trends such as vulcanism and the ENSO are removed from the data. Sea level rise continues apace; it may not be accelerating, but it's not decelerating, either. Basically this guy's words are carefully chosen to sway the ignorant layman.

Hey, Rod - that might be you!


Too many people have too much invested in perpetuating this fiction.


Fiction, is it! One of the most intensely studied natural phenomena of all time, and our expert Cal writes off the enormous body of climate science as "fiction"? Lie number three.

I thought these Christian types weren't supposed to bear false witness...

Canoez
09-20-2013, 10:03 PM
http://www.arm.gov/

http://education.arm.gov/studyhall/globalwarming/ (http://education.arm.gov/studyhall/globalwarming/)

Right now the government is spending a lot of time and effort to study the issue - something that doesn't happen without a little evidence.

RodB
09-20-2013, 10:07 PM
Hey, Rod - that might be you!

I'm just posting some interesting article that seems to be noting a change in the global warming debate. Admittedly my science degree was not in climate studies but at least I'd like to see some definitive studies that illustrate the pro global warming case. If the case was so clear cut, why was it necessary to bias the data as the scandal of the emails showed last year (or so).



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/smilies/icon10.pngHa! What do you think you're doing when you present your outrageous views here if not attacking sensible people?
"Things are turning around"
Damn right they are, and you will be whining like a baby when you Troglodytes lose the next election and sit around blaming sane people for it when it will be your own ignorance and willful hubris that caused it!
We simply will not let you Troglodytes drag us backward to your imaginary "better times".
Grow up! Be a Man! Get a Grip! Pull yourself out of the Tar Pit! Smell the Roses!

Glen, you definitely forgot our medicine today... you are a riot. Do you believe this crazy stuff?? If so, you are definitely in your own world.




RodB

LeeG
09-20-2013, 10:25 PM
RodB has a science degree?

Flying Orca
09-20-2013, 10:28 PM
I'm just posting some interesting article that seems to be noting a change in the global warming debate.

It's a propaganda, pardon me, "opinion", piece by a non-scientist who doesn't quote any actual science. Climate science isn't a debate, it's science - you know, evidence, and logic, and math, and all like that. Debating is for mouthy high-school students.


Admittedly my science degree was not in climate studies but at least I'd like to see some definitive studies that illustrate the pro global warming case.

Well, here's a clue, Binky: Faux News, the Daily Stale, and the likes of Fred Singer are not scientific journals. If you want climate science, read a climate science journal, or a respectable general journal like Science or Nature. You could also check out some secondary sources for the layman; the good ones typically feature links to the papers themselves. Skeptical Science (skepticalscience.com) is a good one.


If the case was so clear cut, why was it necessary to bias the data as the scandal of the emails showed last year (or so).Oh dear... you've been sucked in by lies again. While the anti-science propagandists tried very hard indeed to manufacture a scandal, the most serious criticism offered up by independent review of the emails was that the scientists - not being statisticians themselves, you understand - could have used more sophisticated statistical techniques. Scandalous? Er, not so much.

sleek
09-20-2013, 10:37 PM
Hey, guys remind me, wasnt there an ice age? What ended it? Whatever it was, it was hot and it wasnt us. So maybe humans dont cause climate change? Short of a nuclear winter that is. And to mention one more thing, because the ice age ended naturally, maybe climate change is natural? Or aliens. There is always that.

LeeG
09-20-2013, 10:42 PM
Hey, guys remind me, wasnt there an ice age? What ended it? Whatever it was, it was hot and it wasnt us. So maybe humans dont cause climate change? Short of a nuclear winter that is. And to mention one more thing, because the ice age ended naturally, maybe climate change is natural? Or aliens. There is always that.

And hemerroids

hokiefan
09-20-2013, 10:48 PM
Makes one wonder who Rod thinks he's talking to here!
He seems to imagine himself superior in every way to all of us, much like hanleyclifford and Peffer!
Poor delusional bastids!

I wouldn't put Hanleyclifford in the same group. He has his moments, but fairly often is remarkably rational.

sleek
09-20-2013, 10:51 PM
Ahhh take it easy Glen, I wouldnt say Rod imagines himself superior to all of us, just some of you.

ljb5
09-20-2013, 10:53 PM
Hey, guys remind me, wasnt there an ice age? What ended it? Whatever it was, it was hot and it wasnt us. So maybe humans dont cause climate change? Short of a nuclear winter that is. And to mention one more thing, because the ice age ended naturally, maybe climate change is natural? Or aliens. There is always that.

That's what they call 'spit-balling.'

The guy who blurts out twenty answers isn't any more knowledgeable than the guy who knows one.

Think about it.

RodB
09-20-2013, 10:54 PM
Makes one wonder who Rod thinks he's talking to here!
He seems to imagine himself superior in every way to all of us, much like hanleyclifford and Peffer!
Poor delusional bastids!

Glenn, you are like a pesky little dung fly that buzzes around annoying everyone and has no redeeming value. Why not broaden your horizons and study up on conservative ideals... so that you could have smart positive retorts to all these political threads???:d


RodB

PeterSibley
09-20-2013, 10:57 PM
Rod, how do "conservative ideals " go with an almost complete rejection of the science accepted by 95% of the ordinary, conservative scientific community?

sleek
09-20-2013, 10:57 PM
So your asking for a smart ass Rod?

sleek
09-20-2013, 10:59 PM
Peter, remember, the world used to be flat, heavier objects used to fall faster than lighter ones, and the earth used to be the center of the universe.

LJB, I am sorry, but I didnt understand your point. Honestly, can you explain it to me, never heard of split-balling before.

PeterSibley
09-20-2013, 11:03 PM
Peter, remember, the world used to be flat, heavier objects used to fall faster than lighter ones, and the earth used to be the center of the universe.

LJB, I am sorry, but I didnt understand your point. Honestly, can you explain it to me, never heard of split-balling before.

and then science helped us out with basic science, if people still think the world is flat good luck to them but it doesn't fit well with GPS.

PeterSibley
09-20-2013, 11:04 PM
I remain amazed that apparently intelligent people are immune to basic science and get their "knowledge" from politicians and TV commentators.

ljb5
09-20-2013, 11:12 PM
LJB, I am sorry, but I didnt understand your point. Honestly, can you explain it to me, never heard of split-balling before.

You suggested that "maybe climate change is natural."

Maybe it is.

But do you want to know if it's natural, or do you want to merely suggest the possibility?

You want to know about the ice age? Learn about the ice age.

Any fool can run around saying "It might be this! It might be that!"

But things get a bit tougher (and a lot more interesting) when people really want to know which it is.

Some people like to know what the truth is. Others are content to simply sit back and grumble that they don't. Which type are you?

RodB
09-20-2013, 11:16 PM
Rod, how do "conservative ideals " go with an almost complete rejection of the science accepted by 95% of the ordinary, conservative scientific community?




Conservative ideals is not germaine here I was just jabbing Glen for his personal attack methodology which has really become comical.

If I've learned anything in science its to trust the "scientific method", not a political movement. Lets just say I'm a skeptic on global warming for now although I do think we need to take care of Mother Earth. I have a degree in Wildlife Ecology and also one in Photography. I try to remain open minded ... but I do think it quite arrogant to expect people to have arbitrary brown outs during the winter because of our run away EPA laying out arbitrary regulations without any rock solid science. Additionally, the Obama administration wanting to tax farmers on how many cows they have polluting the atmosphere due to how much each cow farts is just crazy and another way for this "large government" administration to extract more money from the taxpayers.

I've read some and listened to some interviews of some phd meteorologists who have way more knowledge than I do on geological climate change ... that say there is no definitive evidence to make many of the global warming claims that have been made. I'll remain a skeptic for the time being. I will admit that I have not studied this subject at length, its only become a much stronger issue over the past few years (Obama in office).

I thought this article posted here was at the least interesting and worth posting.

RodB

sleek
09-20-2013, 11:35 PM
Ljb, fair enough.

CWSmith
09-20-2013, 11:40 PM
I am amazed by how some people respond to climate change. They have no knowledge, training or experience, but they pontificate on matters of science. They wouldn't do it with anything else, but all of a sudden they are experts without education who can second guess the people with decades of careful scientific study and real knowledge. They stick their head in the sand and say "Maybe it's natural." or "Maybe it isn't happening." or "If it were really a problem someone will fix it." How does the sand taste?

Doesn't an intelligent person face the problem and develop solutions? If so, what kind of person just practices denial and waits for it to get worse? The answer is "A child - someone without the maturity to behave as an adult." We live in a society of spoiled children who want everything and no sacrifice or change.

PeterSibley
09-20-2013, 11:40 PM
Conservative ideals is not germaine here I was just jabbing Glen for his personal attack methodology which has really become comical.

If I've learned anything in science its to trust the "scientific method", not a political movement. Lets just say I'm a skeptic on global warming for now although I do think we need to take care of Mother Earth. I have a degree in Wildlife Ecology and also one in Photography. I try to remain open minded ... but I do think it quite arrogant to expect people to have arbitrary brown outs during the winter because of our run away EPA laying out arbitrary regulations without any rock solid science. Additionally, the Obama administration wanting to tax farmers on how many cows they have polluting the atmosphere due to how much each cow farts is just crazy and another way for this "large government" administration to extract more money from the taxpayers.

I've read some and listened to some interviews of some phd meteorologists who have way more knowledge than I do on geological climate change ... that say there is no definitive evidence to make many of the global warming claims that have been made. I'll remain a skeptic for the time being. I will admit that I have not studied this subject at length, its only become a much stronger issue over the past few years (Obama in office).

I thought this article posted here was at the least interesting and worth posting.

RodB


As per Lib, fair enough. I've read at length and come to the conclusion the AGW is real and overwhelmingly the most serious threat to the global ecology. I hope I'm wrong but at the moment the odds seem to be about 9 to 1 against.

RodB
09-20-2013, 11:48 PM
Peter, one of my issues is I find it difficult to trust in most things I read and also it is quite simple to fudge data to support your conclusions. ... or a bias you might have.

I am planning on spending more time on this issue in the future and if I have a significant change in view, I'll let you know.

RodB

PeterSibley
09-20-2013, 11:55 PM
In your reading try to read 9 pro articles to one anti article, that being the ratio within academia , that ratio being kind to the anti side.

ljb5
09-20-2013, 11:59 PM
Peter, one of my issues is I find it difficult to trust in most things I read and also it is quite simple to fudge data to support your conclusions. ... or a bias you might have.


Rod, this is the data that is referenced in the article in your first post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2013/09/image009.jpg

How can an honest person describe that as "a record return" or arctic ice?

You have a bias. Your data is fudged.

Read more here.

(Weren't you curious about why that article did present any data? Duh!)

RodB
09-21-2013, 12:00 AM
Peter,
I'll keep that ratio in mind.

RodB






..."the Obama administration wanting to tax farmers on how many cows they have due to how much each cow farts..."...

Okay, mister "scientist" give us some links showing how much farmers are paying per cow fart...okay?
You have the nerve to accuse me of having no redeeming value, yet you blithely produce this kind of outrageous, unfounded BS, while you try to balance your halo upon your pointed head!
You're a piece of poorly baked pottery with a hairline crack running from top to bottom.


Glen... heres a few links.. it was being considered at the least. They estimated how much methane a cow releases per year and put a $175 tax on each cow if they were to pass the regulation.

RodB




A link by the NY Times which I suspect you will more likely consider..

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/farmers-relax-a-little-after-cow-tax-scare/?_r=0

Another link about this... being considered by the Obama EPA...
http://americaswatchtower.com/2008/12/05/feds-propose-taxing-farmers-for-cow-farts/






By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
6/2/2009 3:55:19 PM

Is regulating greenhouse gases a necessary means to stop so-called manmade global warming? Or is it an effort by the government to exert more control over Americans’ day-to-day lives?

According to Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking member of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, it is the latter, and it could have a devastating impact on agribusiness.

Sensenbrenner, speaking at the Heartland Institute’s Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. on June 2, explained that a 2007 Supreme Court decision gave the Environmental Protection Agency the ability to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant, which opened the door for the agency to regulate other gases.

“In a 5-4 decision in the case of Massachusetts versus the EPA,” Sensenbrenner explained, the Court “said the EPA could declare CO2 was a pollutant. Now there are several greenhouse gases. CO2 is the one that is the most common and the largest producer of CO2 in the world is the ocean, which we’re not going to be able to control.”

However, if the EPA were given the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, it would also mean the government agency has the ability to regulate methane gas – which is primarily emitted from livestock. Sensenbrenner called this the “cow fart tax.”

“However, methane gas is much more effective in keeping warmth in the atmosphere than CO2, but has a much shorter half-life,” Sensenbrenner explained. “To show you how ridiculous this is getting, the EPA has got the proposed regulation imposing a cow fart tax of $175 a year on every head of dairy cattle in the United States and $80 for beef cattle, $20 per head of hogs.”

The Wisconsin congressman didn’t have a technological solution for livestock greenhouse gas emissions.

“I don’t know if we’re supposed to develop the technology to strap a catalytic converter on the back of a cow,” Sensenbrenner quipped.

Earlier this year, the Farm Bureau told the Business & Media Institute such a tax was plausible according to the EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. However, Sensenbrenner speculated that such a tax could result in dairy products and beef disappearing from the shelves in supermarkets, as a British study he cited had warned.

“This again has got a pretty hefty impact,” Sensenbrenner said. “What I will say is the Brits have looked at this issue and there is a study that was given by a scientific advisory committee to British Parliament that said the cow fart tax will have to be imposed in the U.K. in order to reduce what are referred to as congestive gases. Dairy products and beef will disappear from the shelves in British supermarkets. This goes to the whole business of control.”

Has anyone in the MSM asked the big question here. Just what benefit taxing cow farts would have on improving the environment? And how is this tax revenue intended to be spent to reduce the problem?

My guess is much of the revenue from this scam will be wasted on more entitlement programs and will help fund the 0bama socialist takeover of America and you will never see one cow retrofitted with a catalytic converter to solve this major global warming issue. (sarcasm added)

Now can we all agree that this is literally:

PeterSibley
09-21-2013, 12:08 AM
Rod, now post something demonstrating your interest in a balanced investigation.

“However, methane gas is much more effective in keeping warmth in the atmosphere than CO2, but has a much shorter half-life,” Sensenbrenner explained. “To show you how ridiculous this is getting, the EPA has got the proposed regulation imposing a cow fart tax of $175 a year on every head of dairy cattle in the United States and $80 for beef cattle, $20 per head of hogs.”

BTW, I can't see why that proposal is ridiculous , our CSIRO has developed a series of bacterial inoculant for rumen stomachs aimed at reducing "fart gas", they have the happy side effect of increasing growth as less energy seems to be wasted from the nutrient. Complete stories are good but so much of the "media " output is sensational cherry picking.

sleek
09-21-2013, 12:08 AM
I'm going to invent the cowtalytic converter and be a billionaire!

ljb5
09-21-2013, 12:17 AM
Another bald-faced lie. The idea of a cow-fart tax came from someone speculating that emissions taxes might be applied to cows.

No one ever proposed that they actually would tax cows.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-4651448.html


EPA officials said the agency has not taken a position on any of the matters discussed in its response to the Supreme Court ruling. And John Millett, a spokesman for EPA's air and radiation division, said there has been an oversimplification of the EPA's document "to the point of distortion."

"EPA is not proposing any type of tax on livestock," he said.


Paul Schlegel, director of public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it determined the possible fees that could be imposed by using Agriculture Department statistics on the amount of greenhouse gases that come from livestock and applied it to the EPA's permitting rules.

Please read that and re-read it until you understand it. They "determined the possible fees" by pretending the EPA's rules (that don't apply to cow farts) might be applied to cow farts.

This is just so dishonest.

PeterSibley
09-21-2013, 01:09 AM
I'm going to invent the cowtalytic converter and be a billionaire!

It's been done, see above.

RodB
09-21-2013, 01:43 AM
Glen and Peter...

I just saw that story about taxing for cows a while ago and it came up PDQ... It was supposedly being considered by the EPA... at the time..

Hell, if its on the internet and it reflects badly on the Obama administration... its gotta be true....:D


RodB

PeterSibley
09-21-2013, 01:48 AM
The reality is that the US livestock industry raise cattle in a very unnatural way, confined but with a VERY high grain diet. They fart and fart a lot but more methane comes out their mouths than the other end. That doesn't happen to anywhere to such an extent on a grass diet and with normal exercise.

bobbys
09-21-2013, 02:47 AM
Its easy to see this is a Liberal Gospel and part of their religion. Rod you are branded a heretic..

W e beseech thee brother come back into thy liberal fold and partake of the milk and honey..

bobbys
09-21-2013, 02:49 AM
Heh! Cute, very cute. Make the name close enough and maybe they'll think it's the real thing. Sort of like this:

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/28/41862746_0112343a4f.jpg.

Why is no.5 always .
sweet and sour chicken.

pork fried rice.

chow mein..

egg roll.

PeterSibley
09-21-2013, 02:54 AM
Its easy to see this is a Liberal Gospel and part of their religion. Rod you are branded a heretic..

W e beseech thee brother come back into thy liberal fold and partake of the milk and honey..

So science is liberal eh bobbys ? where does that put you ?

bobbys
09-21-2013, 03:01 AM
So science is liberal eh bobbys ? where does that put you ?.

O my not the dreaded your a Conservative so you hate science line!.

How original.

PeterSibley
09-21-2013, 03:10 AM
Not a necessary coincidence but apparently accurate in your case.

Seems that way from your response, huddle close .

sleek
09-21-2013, 03:11 AM
Christians hate science too ya know...

PeterSibley
09-21-2013, 03:14 AM
Christians hate science too ya know...

No, not in my experience.

Peerie Maa
09-21-2013, 04:33 AM
Rod
You should learn to fact check.
This

“This again has got a pretty hefty impact,” Sensenbrenner said. “What I will say is the Brits have looked at this issue and there is a study that was given by a scientific advisory committee to British Parliament that said the cow fart tax will have to be imposed in the U.K. in order to reduce what are referred to as congestive gases. Dairy products and beef will disappear from the shelves in British supermarkets. This goes to the whole business of control.” is untrue.
Defra prepared a report that did not comment on tax :http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16975
and this report: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2FSN04340.pdf&ei=plY9Uo-QNIas0QWO0IH4DA&usg=AFQjCNGN0dRQDkLj-M5rI2aHJZWcn7b22g&bvm=bv.52434380,d.bGE saya No Taxes on cows.

skuthorp
09-21-2013, 07:09 AM
"a cow fart tax of $175 a year on every head of dairy cattle in the United States and $80 for beef cattle, $20 per head of hogs."

How much for a human?

I frankly doubt whether man has the capacity to do anything effective at all whichever way the climate is going, and for whatever reason. Too late, probably at least 100 years too late. We'll adapt or not, there's no time to evolve.

PeterSibley
09-21-2013, 07:26 AM
How much for a human coal mine ? That's the question ... but not the one being asked .

Nicholas Scheuer
09-21-2013, 08:40 AM
So, the Polar icecaps are growing. That's good. Now tell me about the glaciers on Killomenjero (sp?) and elsewhere.

John Smith
09-21-2013, 08:44 AM
I'd still like to know the downside of getting off fossil fuel, having more mpg, having better insulated homes, etc.

PeterSibley
09-21-2013, 09:03 AM
I'd still like to know the downside of getting off fossil fuel, having more mpg, having better insulated homes, etc.

The downside is less profit for the corporations involved .

John Smith
09-21-2013, 09:17 AM
Fearful rednecks hate science, there are a lot of Christians that understand that science actually explains things that religion has no business sticking its nose into.
As for cherrypicking data and using news sources as proof in a debate about science, well if it comes from "Faux News" it must be right, sc**w the facts they are irrelevant!

I don't know, the more I hear "Christians" talk, the more I see them as hateful hypocrites. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755822/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/#53064847

Flying Orca
09-21-2013, 09:33 AM
Peter, remember, the world used to be flat, heavier objects used to fall faster than lighter ones, and the earth used to be the center of the universe.

Those are terrible examples; scientists have known the world was spherical and attempted to calculate its diameter since the days of the ancient Greeks, testing fall rates was one of Galileo's most famous experiments (the counter-assertion was made by a philosopher, not a scientist), and the earth-centric universe was a scriptural doctrine, not a scientific position (again, it was Galileo - you might call him the first modern scientist - who corrected that notion).

Flying Orca
09-21-2013, 09:55 AM
If I've learned anything in science its to trust the "scientific method", not a political movement. Lets just say I'm a skeptic on global warming for now although I do think we need to take care of Mother Earth.

These two statements are completely contradictory. The enormous, established body of data and theory that constitutes the science of climate change is accepted by every major scientific body in the entire world; there is no - repeat, no - broadly accepted data or theory that contradicts it. Apart from a small handful of cranks, opposition to climate science IS a political movement.


I've read some and listened to some interviews of some phd meteorologists who have way more knowledge than I do on geological climate change ... that say there is no definitive evidence to make many of the global warming claims that have been made.

First, meteorologists are not climate scientists, they are weather scientists. There is a difference, and meteorologists are not necessarily qualified to understand climate science. Second, there are well-known meteorologists whose opposition to climate science has more to do with large payments from the oil industry than knowledge of and opposition to the actual science of climate change.

If their objections were scientifically valid, they would have received Nobel prizes. They are not, they have not, and the only people keeping their crackpot opinions circulating are people like you, who have been duped into - wait for it - a political movement.


I will admit that I have not studied this subject at length

No shi+, Sherlock. How are you making out with skepticalscience.com?


its only become a much stronger issue over the past few years (Obama in office).

Dude, if you can successfully trap one fact between your ears, try to retain this: science is not political. Climate science is not political. If someone is presenting it as political, then they are either trying to use legitimate science to further a political agenda, or they are trying to use a political agenda to attack legitimate science. Neither has anything to do with the validity of the science in question.

beernd
09-21-2013, 12:06 PM
Heh! Cute, very cute. Make the name close enough and maybe they'll think it's the real thing. Sort of like this:

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/28/41862746_0112343a4f.jpg

Brilliant!!
Where do you find gems like these?

RodB
09-21-2013, 12:30 PM
Dude, if you can successfully trap one fact between your ears, try to retain this: science is not political. Climate science is not political. If someone is presenting it as political, then they are either trying to use legitimate science to further a political agenda, or they are trying to use a political agenda to attack legitimate science. Neither has anything to do with the validity of the science in question.


This particular science has been tremendously politicized and you know it. Lots of exaggerated claims by those on the extreme end of the environmental wacko fringe. From a realistic standpoint, I have my doubts about the EPA setting arbitrary limits on how long the generators can run during peak cold spells. You know.. .having brown outs dictated by a fairly political EPA... which has its credibility problems. When you ask the population to sacrifice... or to undertake discomfort the science needs to be rock solid and wild claims by the environmental extremists does not help.

The left on this forum scoff at any and every story that reflects negatively on Obama or any of their political agendas.... no matter the source. This entire country is politicized.... on all issues.

I reserve the right to be a bit cynical and to improve my knowledge on this issue when I have the time and inclination.

I still think the article was interesting and naturally those on the other side of the issue will say its all bunk. I figured there would be some informed responses here.

RodB

Flying Orca
09-21-2013, 12:58 PM
This particular science has been tremendously politicized and you know it.

No question, non-scientists have attempted to use the science to justify non-scientific agendas, and scientists have made suggestions and recommendations as to how our civilization could respond to the (scientific) reality of climate change. However, these things have no affect on the science itself. Like evolution, the scientific reality of climate change has uncomfortable implications for some, and they seek to discredit it through politics and propaganda because they cannot discredit it scientifically. They have duped you into believing them and spreading their lies.


Lots of exaggerated claims by those on the extreme end of the environmental wacko fringe.

News flash: lots of stupid people say lots of stupid things. You've posted some fine examples yourself. However, the scientific establishment tends to be quite conservative in its pronouncements, and I'm willing to bet a bottle of good stuff that your "exaggerated claims" from "the extreme end of the environmental wacko fringe" cannot be found in any credible scientific paper on the subject.


When you ask the population to sacrifice... or to undertake discomfort the science needs to be rock solid and wild claims by the environmental extremists does not help.

Well, it's a good thing the science is rock solid, then. Climate science is much more complicated than, say, acid rain or ozone depletion, but it's also supported by a much larger and more robust body of evidence. The only reason you don't already know this is because a relatively small number of people with a lot of money have conspired to politicize the science and feed you disinformation.


I reserve the right to be a bit cynical and to improve my knowledge on this issue when I have the time and inclination.

There's nothing wrong with "a bit cynical". There is something wrong with discarding an immense body of scientific knowledge that is accepted and endorsed by every major scientific organization in the entire world in favour of the lies of a few cranks and shills. You've been pointed in the direction of reliable information about the actual science of climate change - perhaps you should become better informed before you offer up any more "interesting" propaganda.

beernd
09-21-2013, 01:02 PM
So man made global heating is going to destroy the world.
It's all about greenhouse gasses.
Ergo the death of the dinosaurs was dinosaur made greenhouse gas.
Those 40 ton Brontosaurs did produce an enormous amount of methane.
So it makes sense :cool:

Flying Orca
09-21-2013, 01:17 PM
So man made global heating is going to destroy the world.

Nah, not at all. It's likely to have significant negative impact on our civilization, though. Weather is expected to become more extreme, and so are droughts in many significant areas. Glaciers and snowpacks, which provide fresh water to an estimated sixth of the world's population, are shrinking and expected to continue to do so. Rising sea levels may displace significant numbers of people, creating large refugee populations. Ocean acidification may disrupt already-stressed marine ecosystems. Increased temperatures, particularly a change of over three degrees, are thought likely to reduce agricultural yields and food security, particularly in low latitudes. Tropical pests and diseases are likely to extend their ranges. Biodiversity loss is another expected consequence.

Then there are the tipping point scenarios, such as the clathrate gun hypothesis, the possible shutdown of the
Atlantic thermohaline circulation, and runaway warming that melts all the polar ice. It's questionable whether our advanced technological civilization would survive some of those scenarios, though I have no doubt that our species will survive anything short of a drastic and very rapid change in the composition of the atmosphere.

ljb5
09-21-2013, 03:06 PM
I reserve the right to be a bit cynical and to improve my knowledge on this issue when I have the time and inclination.

When you post hogwash like that fabricated story about cow farts, I find it very hard to believe that you have any interest in improving your knowledge.

It's not just that you're years behind in coming up to speed. It actually seems like you go out of your way to find false and misleading statements to support your position.

Canoez
09-27-2013, 10:33 AM
So, to bury this dead horse a little bit deeper:

IPCC climate report: humans 'dominant cause' of warming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

A separate report presented at the recent UCAR conference concluded much the same thing.

RodB
09-27-2013, 12:09 PM
The following link showed me more than I would ever want to know about climate change... and "global warming". I reviewed most all of it.


* The greenhouse effect is a warming effect caused by certain gases that retain heat from sunlight.[9] Without such gases, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be below freezing, and as explained by the Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, "life, as we know it, would not exist."[10] The global warming debate is centered upon whether added greenhouse gases released by human activity will overheat the Earth and cause harmful effects.[11]

I did see a general trend... ie., lots of published statements etc that made claims that ended up not being true with later studies... (by scientists and the press) . An example: global warming causing the tropical islands to degrade... due to a higher water level etc ... but then a study was done and found overall this was not true.... and that the area of the islands over all had increased.


http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp


* Coral reef islands are typically found in the Pacific Ocean and are primarily composed of gravel, silt and sand that has accumulated on coral reefs. The habitable land of some island nations such as Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Maldives is comprised entirely of coral reef islands. These islands are considered to be among the most vulnerable places on earth to rising sea levels.[248] [249] At the 2009 United Nations Climate Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, Ian Fry of the government of Tuvalu addressed the conference and stated:




The entire population of Tuvalu lives below two meters above sea level. The highest point above sea level in the entire nation of Tuvalu is only 4 meters. … It's an irony of the modern world that the fate of the world is being determined by some senators in the U.S. congress. … [T]he greatest threat to humanity that we have before us [is] climate change…. I woke this morning, and I was crying, and that's not easy for a grown man to admit. The fate of my country rests in your hands.[250]




* The authors of a 2010 paper in the journal Global and Planetary Change used aerial and satellite photographs to conduct "the first quantitative analysis of physical changes" in 27 central Pacific coral reef islands (including those in Tuvalu) over a 19 to 61 year period. They found that:

• 43% of these islands remained stable,
• 15% decreased in area with changes ranging from 3% to 14%,
• 43% increased in area with changes ranging from 3% to 30%,
• the combined area of all the islands increased by 7%, and
• the "results of this study contradict widespread perceptions that all reef islands are eroding in response to recent sea level rise."[251]



It looked like there was all kinds of articles published by the media that made all kinds of claims that were not true ...but certainly served to sway the public and they consistently said "The debate is over".

Overall, seems like a a good synopsis of facts... ... I need to go over it in more detail....

RodB







http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp


"Global Warming Facts." By James D. Agresti and Schuyler Dugle. Just Facts, August 15, 2011. Revised 7/25/13.http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp


This caught my eye....


* As of August 2011, 9,029 Ph.D. scientists including 3,805 atmospheric, earth, or environmental scientists have signed a petition stating:





There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.[337] [338] [339]






Another example.... bias...

* Between July 1, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2007, ABC, CBS, and NBC aired 188 stories regarding climate change. Of these, 79% excluded any dissent about human-induced global warming:



And this seem appropriate here...


* The Democratic Party Platform states:




Global climate change is the planet's greatest threat, and our response will determine the very future of life on this earth. … We will implement a market-based cap and trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic change and we will set interim targets along the way to ensure that we meet our goal. We will invest in advanced energy technologies…. We will use innovative measures to dramatically improve the energy efficiency of buildings, including establishing a grant program for early adopters and providing incentives for energy conservation.[320]




* The Republican Party Platform states:




As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy. …
Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.[321]

John Smith
09-27-2013, 12:22 PM
Hey, guys remind me, wasnt there an ice age? What ended it? Whatever it was, it was hot and it wasnt us. So maybe humans dont cause climate change? Short of a nuclear winter that is. And to mention one more thing, because the ice age ended naturally, maybe climate change is natural? Or aliens. There is always that.

How about humans CONTRIUBUTE to climate change?

John Smith
09-27-2013, 12:25 PM
I am amazed by how some people respond to climate change. They have no knowledge, training or experience, but they pontificate on matters of science. They wouldn't do it with anything else, but all of a sudden they are experts without education who can second guess the people with decades of careful scientific study and real knowledge. They stick their head in the sand and say "Maybe it's natural." or "Maybe it isn't happening." or "If it were really a problem someone will fix it." How does the sand taste?

Doesn't an intelligent person face the problem and develop solutions? If so, what kind of person just practices denial and waits for it to get worse? The answer is "A child - someone without the maturity to behave as an adult." We live in a society of spoiled children who want everything and no sacrifice or change.

My old question: what is the downside if man is NOT responsible for climate change, but we get more efficient cars, better insulated buildings, etc.?

Keith Wilson
09-27-2013, 12:26 PM
Hey, guys remind me, wasnt there an ice age? What ended it? Whatever it was, it was hot and it wasnt us. So maybe humans don't cause climate change?- Climate sometimes changes because of things other than human activity
- Therefore, human activity cannot change the climate.

- Car crashes sometimes happen because of things other than drunk drivers.
- Therefore, drunk rivers cannot cause car crashes.

Right, that's logic. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

John Smith
09-27-2013, 12:28 PM
The reality is that the US livestock industry raise cattle in a very unnatural way, confined but with a VERY high grain diet. They fart and fart a lot but more methane comes out their mouths than the other end. That doesn't happen to anywhere to such an extent on a grass diet and with normal exercise.

Too bad fracking for natural gas isn't under any regs.

John Smith
09-27-2013, 12:33 PM
This particular science has been tremendously politicized and you know it. Lots of exaggerated claims by those on the extreme end of the environmental wacko fringe. From a realistic standpoint, I have my doubts about the EPA setting arbitrary limits on how long the generators can run during peak cold spells. You know.. .having brown outs dictated by a fairly political EPA... which has its credibility problems. When you ask the population to sacrifice... or to undertake discomfort the science needs to be rock solid and wild claims by the environmental extremists does not help.

The left on this forum scoff at any and every story that reflects negatively on Obama or any of their political agendas.... no matter the source. This entire country is politicized.... on all issues.

I reserve the right to be a bit cynical and to improve my knowledge on this issue when I have the time and inclination.

I still think the article was interesting and naturally those on the other side of the issue will say its all bunk. I figured there would be some informed responses here.

RodB

Isn't this all the same as the debate over tobacco and the tobacco industry finding scientists to claim the jury was still out on tobacco causing cancer? When I think of the people I knew who believed there was no connection between cigarettes and lung cancer and then smoked themselves to death via lung cancer, I am appalled that so many today still believe what they want to believe and refuse to let any facts get in their way.

John Smith
09-27-2013, 12:37 PM
Here's something I do know. Where I grew up we had several ponds/lakes in our area. Pretty much all winter, every winter, I skated on those frozen ponds. My mom and her sister hat skated on them every winter for all their lives.

Those ponds have not supported skating for several decades, as they've not frozen sufficiently. That seems a trend.

CWSmith
09-27-2013, 02:00 PM
My old question: what is the downside if man is NOT responsible for climate change, but we get more efficient cars, better insulated buildings, etc.?

While I agree with you, we do need to see where the reluctance comes from (other than profit in big corporations). Photovoltaics for my roof will cost $20k or more after the rebates and my house is oriented the wrong way to be really efficient. People like their powerful cars (their "vroom") and don't want to be without it. Carpooling is a pain. Big cities desperately need better mass transportation, but that requires an investment and that means taxes and we all know that taxes are the root of all evil (or so I'm told). Convenience. Expense. Tradition. Misplaced values. It isn't hard to understand.

Here's the other side of the coin - what world are we leaving to our kids and how do we justify it?

Canoez
09-27-2013, 02:13 PM
While I agree with you, we do need to see where the reluctance comes from (other than profit in big corporations). Photovoltaics for my roof will cost $20k or more after the rebates and my house is oriented the wrong way to be really efficient. People like their powerful cars (their "vroom") and don't want to be without it. Carpooling is a pain. Big cities desperately need better mass transportation, but that requires an investment and that means taxes and we all know that taxes are the root of all evil (or so I'm told). Convenience. Expense. Tradition. Misplaced values. It isn't hard to understand.

Here's the other side of the coin - what world are we leaving to our kids and how do we justify it?

Well, we're able to do the photovoltaics - we're putting up about 6 Kw of panels and will basically be a net generator of electricity when done. Payback is looking like 5 years based on the numbers we're seeing. It will let us use our heat pump to heat (down to 25°F outdoor temperatures) and cool the house without burning fossil fuels. We'll still be dependent on oil when it's really cold, but we're trying to reduce our use. It's a start.

It still irks me to see people post stuff like RodB has above where in essence two guys from New Jersey have looked through data to find what appears to best fit what they want to say and have said they excluded things where one set of research facts overlaps another - based on what expertise and what information, they don't say. People want the data to be simple. It's not.