41 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

OverSword, on 11 July 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Nobody really read the article did they?

Your comment prompted me to actually read it.  Interesting.

About "volcano storms:"  they are real.  And they show up in the tree-ring record, right here in Oklahoma.  The largest known storm was probably Fimbul Winter (535-537 AD), apparently the result of an eruption of a South American volcano.  The storm of 1886 produced the strongest tree-ring storm signal since 1650 - and devastated the livestock industry; it was a delayed effect of the eruption of Krakatoa.

One can imagine some effects like a few earthquakes being set off as a result of the shifting of water masses (Those already occur during the filling of large reservoirs.), but whole countries disappearing is a little hard to believe.

Climate change deniers would do better if they actually read the books and articles and then tried to refute them, instead of making up things the articles never said.
Doug

[Arbenol68]

Jeremy Clarkson, smug? What a scurrilous accusation!

Clarkson is right about one thing. Bill McGuire is a perennial prophet of doom. Read some of his books. They're full of end-of-the-world speculations.

[Michelle]

Doug1o29, on 11 July 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Your comment prompted me to actually read it.  Interesting.

Climate change deniers would do better if they actually read the books and articles and then tried to refute them, instead of making up things the articles never said.
Doug

Sorry...I had to do that.

Edited by Michelle, 11 July 2012 - 07:44 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Michelle, on 11 July 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Sorry...I had to do that.

LOL.  I've been reading the science on AGW for the past ten years.  The journals are pretty accurate, most of the time.  The popular press, on the other hand, whether pro or can, often gets it screwed up.  That's why most people (me included) don't bother reading these artciles - much of the time they don't get it right, anyway.

At least, I'm not making up straw men to shoot down.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

Capt Amerika, on 10 July 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Its been a lot quieter recently because Al Gore has his Millions of dollars from speaking out about Global Warming ....

The charge is made that global warming scientists are in it only for the money.  You see that on UM a lot.  Al Gore has, in fact, made some oney from global warming; though, as a former Vice President, he could have chosen almost any topic and made a lot of money speaking about it.

There is a lot of money to be made by providing energy-efficient products for the consumer market - fluorescent ight bulbs to name one.  And a lot of money will be made by the car makers if and when they get efficient electric vehicles on line.  Any major change in the economy will produce winners and losers.

At the top of this page, as I write this, is a link to Jim Inhofe's anti-global warming diatribe:  UM is making money off the hype, too.  But let's take a look at Inhofe's campaign contributions (bribes):

For his 2008 campaign, he received $446,900 from the oil & gas industry and $221,654 from electric utilities.

For his 2010 campaign, he received $429,950 from oil and gas interests and $206,654 from electric utilities.  From the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association he received $55,869.  United Parcel Srervice contributed $51,850; National Association of Realtors $51,700; Nationalo Rifle Association $51,050; American Medical Association $51,000; Koch Industries $90,950.

Jim Inhofe is bought and paid for by big business and he is making a killing from global warming.  We have the best Senator money can buy.
Doug

Source:  http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jim_Inhofe

[Charlie Prime]

Doug1o29, on 12 July 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Jim Inhofe is bought and paid for by big business and he is making a killing from global warming.  We have the best Senator money can buy.

Do you expect us to believe that money can influence what government employees say about Climate Change?

Nice conspiracy theory, but no cigar.

[Charlie Prime]

Doug1o29, on 11 July 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

So, exactly what science do you doubt and why?

I don't doubt science.

Show me a climate model that can backcast, and then we'll talk about you extracting trillions of dollars from people's pockets.

[MysticStrummer]

Charlie Prime, on 12 July 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Do you expect us to believe that money can influence what government employees say about Climate Change?

Nice conspiracy theory, but no cigar.

Is this a joke?

[Doug1o29]

Charlie Prime, on 12 July 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Do you expect us to believe that money can influence what government employees say about Climate Change?

Nice conspiracy theory, but no cigar.

I admit that Wikipedia is not the best source, but do you think the dollar figures they give are wrong?  People don't contribute large amounts of money to political candidates unless they want something in return.  "Contributions" to Jim Inhofe's political campaigns total over $1.2 million in just 2008 and 2010 alone.  Inhofe has been in the Senate since 1994; if he didn't deliver on what his backers want, they'd be supporting somebody else.

I think it's pretty obvious that he's in the pockets of Koch Industries and others connected to Big Oil.  And with Citizens United, it's going to be very difficult to dislodge them.  So while it may be technically legal, it's still ethically reprehensible.

And BTW:  it is illegal for a public employee (at least in the states I know about) to accept a graituity of any kind.  And I might add that Inhofe isn't the only one accepting bribes thinly disguised as "campaign contributions."
Doug

[Charlie Prime]

> "Is this a joke?"

Yes.  It is always rather comical when Climate Grift proponents claim money has no influence on government employees because their dedication to "truth" is so pure.

[Charlie Prime]

Doug1o29, on 12 July 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

And BTW:  it is illegal for a public employee (at least in the states I know about) to accept a graituity of any kind.

You mean like a salary and research funding?

[Doug1o29]

Charlie Prime, on 12 July 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

I don't doubt science.

Show me a climate model that can backcast, and then we'll talk about you extracting trillions of dollars from people's pockets.

Why are you depending on climate models?  If I want to know how high the sea level will be when it's two degrees warmer, I check out how high it was the last time it was two degrees warmer.  Don't need a climate model for that.  If I want to know what an extra 200 ppm of CO2 will do to temperature, I use a regression model:  more dependable and a lot fewer variables to deal with.

Another thought:  conservation SAVES money.  It costs me $60 to fill my gas tank.  A friend of mine owns a Chevy Volt:  it takes fifty cents worth of electricity to recharge it and both can go about the same distance bewteen "fillups."  This spring my next door neighbor turned his air conditioner on two full months before I turned mine on (I have a thermal blanket in the attic; he doesn't.).  I also have insulated shutters that keep both heat and cold out.

And those flourescent bulbs are a lot cheaper to operate than incandescent ones, even given the higher purchase price; and I'm told that LED bulbs are cheaper still.

So you can believe all that hype about conversion being so expensive if you want to.  Personally, I am converting as fast as the economics allow.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

Charlie Prime, on 12 July 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

You mean like a salary and research funding?

I accept a salary (and as of the end of the year will be looking for a position that pays a living wage; I know truck drivers who make more than I do and my daughter, who has been a mud logger/geostearer for a well services company since she graduated two years ago, makes twice what I do.).  And I get no grant money.

So if you think I'm somehow getting rich off of my research, I'd like to get ahold of whatever you're smoking.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

Charlie Prime, on 12 July 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

> "Is this a joke?"

Yes.  It is always rather comical when Climate Grift proponents claim money has no influence on government employees because their dedication to "truth" is so pure.

I think you just made my point about the influence of big money on politics, particularly by people who think their profits are threatened by climate research.  I don't think the energy companies have anything to worry about:  they'll be the ones selling "green" technologies.

AND:  money has a MAJOR impact on climate research.  It takes money to run a lab or even just a microscope.  And if the money isn't appropriated for that purpose, less work will get done.  And people like Inhofe know that and are trying to cut research by cutting budgets.

I have a masters in biometrics and a Ph.D. in environmental science; I can research about anything that makes use of those skills.  Guess who hires most of our graduates:  hospitals.  Medical research pays a lot better so many people with climate degrees do medical research after they graduate.  So while I'd like to stay in some form of climate or natural sciences research, I'm not worried.  If money were the motivator, I'd have left this field long ago.  And I might do that, yet.
Doug

[Junior Chubb]

This article is ridiculous, a scientist getting upset with Jeremy Clarkson!

Jeremy Clarkson is an idiot when it comes to most subjects, shouting his opinion before realising what he is shouting about, diving in head first at the deep end and generally upsetting people. I do not believe he is a puppet for anyone's means or goals, just a muppet for his own means and goals.

But having said that he is a celebrity, and a very funny one at that, I enjoy watching him on the TV and if I ever read his column I usually have a chuckle at the less serious subjects he addresses. This is the thing he is a celebrity, and his views on climate change should not be taken seriously (does anyone on this thread take Jeremy Clarkson views on climate change seriously? Anybody?), the writer of the column seems angry at the world and that Jeremy's voice is louder than his in the commercial media (obviously not in more educated circles). Jeremy Clarkson does not believe in climate change, so what?

Jeremy is a plonker, but I think I have just found an even bigger one...

One more thing, there was a comment on the articles web page about confusion in time scale...

Quote

Clarkson perhaps considers use of rapid to be within the next decades or 90 years (as in most of the 'scary' IPCC scenarios for context.

I suspect the author means rapid in a rather longer timescale (hopefully). and to be blunt, in the political climate of rapid climate change and projections of scary scenarios of less than 90 years, perhaps the onus is on the author to clarify 'rapid'

I was hoping someone more educated on the articles content could let me know, is this a fair comment?

Edited by Junior Chubb, 12 July 2012 - 08:14 PM.