Climate change

[Daniel1960]

As I recall, New York city "adapted" by submerging itself underwater during hurricane Sandy and then spending tens of billions of dollars to rebuild.

 

The Philippians "adapted" by burying thousands of people after typhoon Haiyan.

Florida residents have adapted by building hurricane shetlers (although they have gotten little use recently). New Orleans adapted by evacuating the city. In the past, people were not ready for the destruction potential of these storms.

 

The residents of Long Island were caught offguard in 1938. Galveston was completely unprepared in 1900. Miami was the most foolish, where residents went outside into the eye in 1926, believing that the storm had passed.

 

These storms are nothing new. They have occurred thoughtout history, with no distinct pattern. The recent lull in tropical storm activity may only be temporary, or could last for a decade or more, like the previous one. Thus far, no connection has been made between tropical cyclonic activity and global warming, so claiming a particle storm is the result of global warming or that the lull in activity is proof against is foolhardy and appears politically motivated.

 

When comparing hurricane strength, look to Camillie, whose full intensity may never be known, because the hurricane destroyed the landfall measuring equipment when the winds topped 190 mph.

[hrothgar]

Thus far, no connection has been made between tropical cyclonic activity and global warming, so claiming a particle storm is the result of global warming or that the lull in activity is proof against is foolhardy and appears politically motivated.

 

Learn to read ass wipe. I was not making general claims based on a specific storms.

 

Al-U-Card asked a specific question. "How do those affected people adapt?"

 

I found it telling that the specific area that was called out in this article also experience catastrophic flooding costing billions of dollars during this precise same period. The irony was too much to refrain from posting.

[Al_U_Card]

And since the "effect" of [CO2] has no ascertainable relationship to these disasters, it is truly ironic (perhaps moronic) that zealots and alarmists would ask that we expend our resources in such a foolish manner as to try to control the weather through carbon credits and trading/taxation schemes.

 

Factual observation and reasoned argument are lost on those with the fervent belief that they can somehow save the planet by impoverishing the potential victims with schemes and scams related to the current "bogey-man". This is revealed by their vehement and vitriolic response to any questioning of the "party" line. Consensus "science", indeed!

[hrothgar]

And since the "effect" of [CO2] has no ascertainable relationship to these disasters,

 

Bullshit

 

Complete, unadulterated bullshit

 

You come here, week after week, and you lie and you lie and you lie and somehow the idiot moderators that we have prefer to pretend that you are valued member of the community than the equivalent of another spammer pushing penis enhancement.

 

How about it Ben? How about it Barry?

 

Al hasn't posted bridge related content in decades.

Daniel openly admits that he only participates in these forums to "debate" climate change?

 

How are these whackjobs any different than commercial spammers?

[billw55]

How are these whackjobs any different than commercial spammers?

Because they aren't spreading their posts at random. They are confined to one thread, that nobody is obligated to read. They are not making multiple new IDs to circumvent blocks by the site or by individual users.

 

So while I usually disagree with the content of their posts, I don't think banning/blocking/etc is necessary or even a good idea.

[Al_U_Card]

Here viz: Overall I’m very pleased with the way this panel went. In terms of audience reaction, the panel organizer emailed this comment:

 

He and I have been to many, many NARUC conferences, and we agreed afterwards that your panel was the first time we saw the entire audience riveted and not having side conversations or working on their phones. One east-coast commissioner made a point of thanking me for organizing it and said it was the best session on the topic that he had ever heard. Finally, I must say that XXX was very pleased and commented that your panel was an example of what NARUC should encourage — thoughtful, smart discussion of important topics.

 

 

Just the facts and the uncertainties. is as balanced and germane a presentation of the viewpoints. Reading the arguments and explanations will provide the proper perspective for evaluating appropriately the nature of this debate. Well worth the time required to get through it.

 

 

As for the approach to those that hold opposing views, it is clear which side cannot or will not discuss and compare. Calls for banishment and punitive measures are the mark of the desperate and/or inadequate.

[Daniel1960]

Bullshit

 

Complete, unadulterated bullshit

 

You come here, week after week, and you lie and you lie and you lie and somehow the idiot moderators that we have prefer to pretend that you are valued member of the community than the equivalent of another spammer pushing penis enhancement.

 

How about it Ben? How about it Barry?

 

Al hasn't posted bridge related content in decades.

Daniel openly admits that he only participates in these forums to "debate" climate change?

 

How are these whackjobs any different than commercial spammers?

 

And yet, we have to deal with your profanity day in and day out.

 

You have shown no evidence that these events are tied to atmospheric increases of carbon dioxide, but still claim that they are. Even scientist cannot show any connection.

 

I agree with Bill. Who are you to enforce censorship? Especially when the ideas presented are sound scientifically.

[hrothgar]

Calls for banishment and punitive measures are the mark of the desperate and/or inadequate.

 

In general, I agree, however, you're a pathological narcissist who continually introduced factual incorrect information into any discussion that you take part in. You've openly admitted that you lie in these threads and tried to present a moral defense for doing so.

 

Individuals like you deserve to be banned because you don't contribute anything other than incessant paranoid noise.

[Daniel1960]

In general, I agree, however, you're a pathological narcissist who continually introduced factual incorrect information into any discussion that you take part in. You've openly admitted that you lie in these threads and tried to present a moral defense for doing so.

 

Individuals like you deserve to be banned because you don't contribute anything other than incessant paranoid noise.

 

You may want to consider the words of Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

 

You may also like, “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

[hrothgar]

You may want to consider the words of Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

 

 

You persist in acting as if you and Al are engaging in "speech".

You're not.

 

You're masturbating in public. I'm pointing out that it is unseemly.

[Daniel1960]

You persist in acting as if you and Al are engaging in "speech".

You're not.

 

You're masturbating in public. I'm pointing out that it is unseemly.

 

Are you really content to have such posts attributed to your name?

 

I actually thought we were debating this issue. It appears that I have been mistaken. You seem to be interested only in verbally attacking those with whom you disagree, as if only your opinion is the only one that matters. I see no others engaging in such actions.

[nige1]

Learn to read ass wipe. I was not making general claims based on a specific storms.

Al-U-Card asked a specific question. "How do those affected people adapt?"

I found it telling that the specific area that was called out in this article also experience catastrophic flooding costing billions of dollars during this precise same period. The irony was too much to refrain from posting.

Bullshit

Complete, unadulterated bullshit

You come here, week after week, and you lie and you lie and you lie and somehow the idiot moderators that we have prefer to pretend that you are valued member of the community than the equivalent of another spammer pushing penis enhancement.

How about it Ben? How about it Barry?

Al hasn't posted bridge related content in decades.

Daniel openly admits that he only participates in these forums to "debate" climate change?

How are these whackjobs any different than commercial spammers?

You persist in acting as if you and Al are engaging in "speech". You're not.

You're masturbating in public. I'm pointing out that it is unseemly.

Descending to ad hominem attack is widely judged to be a tacit admission that you've lost the argument. Climate-change is important as an issue. The debate is still on. The matter is by no means decided. Discussion of it should not be demeaned and curtailed in this way.

[hrothgar]

Are you really content to have such posts attributed to your name?

 

I actually thought we were debating this issue. It appears that I have been mistaken. You seem to be interested only in verbally attacking those with whom you disagree, as if only your opinion is the only one that matters. I see no others engaging in such actions.

 

Perhaps the fact that (almost) no one else bothers to respond to your idiocy can be taken as a signal regarding the value of your postings.

I tend to be more active in my belligerence.

[hrothgar]

Descending to ad hominem attack is widely judged to be a tacit admission that you've lost the argument.

 

The rules of classic rhetoric and debate really don't apply to the internet.

 

In my experience, complaining about "ad hominem attacks" is a tactic that stupid people use when they object to having been labeled as idiots and still want equal time spent on their opinions.

 

(The reason that ad hominem attack crops up so often on the internet is that its a lot easier to point out that a given individual (say Al) constantly posts inaccurate information than trying to refute the ridiculous number of inane claims that he posts)

 

FWIW, Krugman has a nice defense of ad hominem attacks in his column today.

 

People who declared back in 2009 that Keynesianism was nonsense and that monetary expansion would inevitably cause runaway inflation are still saying exactly the same thing after six years of quiescent inflation and overwhelming evidence that austerity affects economies exactly the way Keynesians said it would.

 

And we’re not just talking about cranks without credentials; we’re talking about founders of the Shadow Open Market Committee and Nobel laureates.

 

Obviously this isn’t just a story about economics; it covers everything from climate science and evolution to Bill O’Reilly’s personal history.

 

3. Point out the wrongness in ways designed to grab readers’ attention — with ridicule where appropriate, with snark, and with names attached. This will get read; it will get you some devoted followers, and a lot of bitter enemies. One thing it won’t do, however, is change any of those closed minds.

 

So is there a reason I go for door #3, other than simply telling the truth and having some fun while I’m at it? Yes — because the point is not to convince Rick Santelli or Allan Meltzer that they are wrong, which is never going to happen. It is, instead, to deter other parties from false equivalence.

[Al_U_Card]

Descending to ad hominem attack is widely judged to be a tacit admission that you've lost the argument. Climate-change is important as an issue. The debate is still on. The matter is by no means decided. Discussion of it should not be demeaned and curtailed in this way.

Likely THE most important issue of our time, as it impacts our wallets as well as our futures. McCarthy and Lysenko appealed to authority to stifle debate and discussion. Happily we are still in a free society that allows for the exchange of ideas as well as the ridicule of those with whom we disagree. I have no problem with others showing their true colors, it makes it easier to discard the chaff (cry-babies and misanthropes included) and deal with the wheat, as it were.

[Winstonm]

Descending to ad hominem attack is widely judged to be a tacit admission that you've lost the argument. Climate-change is important as an issue. The debate is still on. The matter is by no means decided. Discussion of it should not be demeaned and curtailed in this way.

 

A refusal to accept the science that cigarette smoking is addictive and leads to cancers and lung diseases does not mean there is still debate about cigarettes or that the matter is not settled - and anyone who espouses such views about cigarettes or other overwhelming scientific consensus should be vilified as being ridiculous, even if that means making an ad hominem attack.

[Al_U_Card]

Climate change, or subject change? ROFL

[nige1]

A refusal to accept the science that cigarette smoking is addictive and leads to cancers and lung diseases does not mean there is still debate about cigarettes or that the matter is not settled - and anyone who espouses such views about cigarettes or other overwhelming scientific consensus should be vilified as being ridiculous, even if that means making an ad hominem attack.

How does vilifying those with whom you disagree accomplish any good? :(

[hrothgar]

Climate change, or subject change? ROFL

 

Winston is hardly changing the subject.

 

The precise same set of lobbying groups are being paid to critique climate change that were paid to try to discredit the science on the link between cigarette smoking and cancer.

Same funding sources as well.

 

This is all well documented. ("Merchant's of Doubt" is a standard reference)

[nige1]

In my experience, complaining about "ad hominem attacks" is a tactic that stupid people use when they object to having been labeled as idiots and still want equal time spent on their opinions.

If I'm stupid :( I'm in good company because I share most of Hrothgar's opinions on climate-change :)

[Al_U_Card]

To quote noted skeptic James Randi:

 

"Happily, science does not depend on consensus. Conclusions are either reached or not, but only after an analysis of evidence as found in nature. It’s often been said that once a conclusion is reached, proper scientists set about trying to prove themselves wrong. Failing in that, they arrive at a statement that appears — based on all available data — to describe a limited aspect about how the world appears to work. And not all scientists are willing to follow this path. My most excellent friend Martin Gardner once asked a parapsychologist just what sort of evidence would convince him he had erred in coming to a certain conclusion. The parascientist replied that he could not imagine any such situation, thus — in my opinion — removing him from the ranks of the scientific discipline rather decidedly.

History supplies us with many examples where scientists were just plain wrong about certain matters, but ultimately discovered the truth through continued research. Science recovers from such situations quite well, though sometimes with minor wounds […]

as far as humans are concerned, ten times more people die each year from the effects of cold than die from the heat. This a hugely complex set of variables we are trying to reduce to an equation…

It’s easy enough to believe that drought, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes are signs of a coming catastrophe from global warming, but these are normal variations of any climate that we — and other forms of life — have survived. Earth has undergone many serious changes in climate, from the Ice Ages to periods of heavily increased plant growth from their high levels of CO2, yet the biosphere has survived. We’re adaptable, stubborn, and persistent — and we what other life forms don’t have: we can manipulate our environment. Show me an Inuit who can survive in his habitat without warm clothing… Humans will continue to infest Earth because we’re smart.

In my amateur opinion, more attention to disease control, better hygienic conditions for food production and clean water supplies, as well as controlling the filth that we breathe from fossil fuel use, are problems that should distract us from fretting about baking in Global Warming."

 

6 years on...

[Al_U_Card]

Speakiing of funding...

 

Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from

FY2008 through FY2013. The large majority—more than 75%—has funded technology

development and deployment, primarily through the Department of Energy (DOE). More than

one-third of the identified funding was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal

expenditures on programs. In the request, 23% would be for science, 68% for energy technology

development and deployment, 8% for international assistance, and 1% for adapting to climate

change.

 

versus the "well-funded" denial machine?

[Winstonm]

How does vilifying those with whom you disagree accomplish any good? :(

 

Because calling a fraud a fraud and explaining to the mesmerized how his apparent magic is accomplished removes the power from the trickster.

[nige1]

Because calling a fraud a fraud and explaining to the mesmerized how his apparent magic is accomplished removes the power from the trickster.

I doubt that any contributor to this topic is a "fraud" or has "mesmerised" another contributor. In any case, counter-argument is a more effective remedy than name-calling, which just inhibits on-topic discussion.

[Al_U_Card]

Whack-job: Individual presenting whacky or patently unsubstantiated claims, viz:

 

Srgjan Kerim, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

UN Press release, 8 Jul 2008

 

Mark Lynas draws on the latest science to describe the world under warming scenarios ranging from 1° (bad) to 6°C (unimaginably bad). He sums up the task with brutal candour: “we have only seven years left to peak global emissions before facing escalating dangers of runaway global warming.”

review of Recent Books about Climate Change, By Clive Hamilton, http://www.themonthly.com.au October 2008

 

The planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist. Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint. Australians – among the world’s biggest producers of carbon dioxide – were “better placed than others to do something about it”, she said.

Herald Sun, December 04, 2009

 

On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming — “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

as reported in The Washington Times, 21 Apr 2014

 

“[by] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[by 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.”

Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990

 

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

 

A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.

San Jose Mercury News 30 Jun 1989

 

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012. Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth’s remaining resources.

The Canadian, 8 Jan 2007

 

Tricksters and charlatans, indeed!