|
7896. Wombat - 4/18/2012 3:53:21 PM At least it's not on fire in the above picture... 7897. concerned - 4/18/2012 5:52:22 PM Your response in 7893 makes me think of the Family Guy episode where Stewie and Brian travel back in time to prevent 9/11 and, as a result of that and no resulting Afghan War, George Bush lets his 'natural' 'conservative' propensities create a situation where a world war occurs that results in the virtual destruction of the earth.
Who started the EPA? The greatly hated Conservative, Richard Milhous Nixon. It defies reason to seriously believe that conservatives are less concerned with environmental quality than anybody else except for fringe types.
Facile, trite, marginally entertaining...and almost entirely untrue - that's about as far as all those 'conservatives are bad guys only held in check by world events and/or heroic progressives' scenarios can be taken in reality. 7898. vonKreedon - 4/18/2012 6:58:58 PM Ummm...Con, have you been paying attention to what Repub candidates and legislators have been saying about environmental regulations? Did you notice that Nixon, if he were active today and pushing the same policies, would not be considered a conservative, I'm not sure he'd even be considered a RINO.
Some of today's Repub positions on environmental regulations:
Not to mention the whole global warming denial vitriol that passes for policy on the right.7899. iiibbb - 4/18/2012 7:44:01 PM This is why I got into environmental research...
... it has not be a lucrative career path... but I'm still mostly glad I did it. I just get more depressed than if I'd been an engineer I think. 7900. concerned - 4/18/2012 8:13:27 PM Sorry. If CO2 is a pollutant because it retains atmospheric heat, so is water vapor, a much greater contributor to global warming.
The EPA should either classify both or neither as pollutants based on that criterion.
7901. concerned - 4/18/2012 8:35:11 PM The EPA classifying CO2 as a pollutant is an unjustifiable, unconscionable overreach. 7902. vonKreedon - 4/18/2012 8:44:18 PM Because global climate change due to the megatons of CO2 we've been dumping into the atmosphere is a hoax? 7903. concerned - 4/18/2012 9:28:40 PM I'd say that while anthropogenic global warming measurably exists, all the hoopla and doomsaying surrounding it qualifies as the greatest scientific hoax in human history.
I'm not one to encourage a hoax, even if it is purported to be for the welfare of the human race. Are you?
One aspect of this hoax that has been recently exposed is that new research has definitively established that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were not limited to Europe as the IPCC and global warming alarmists have stoutly maintained but were of far greater extent, most probably global. Link to Syracuse University press release follows:
Scientists use rare mineral to correlate past climate events in Europe, Antarctica
This research alone demolishes a good deal of the global warming edifice. Every year now the screaming from the global warming chicken littles dies down some more - the hysteria diminishes. And for good reason. It's been over 30 years since the global warming hoax first hit, and the projections of weather change, sea level change, etc. have reduced by nearly an order of magnitude in just a generation and a half. This is what global warming alarmists have laughably called a 'consensus'.
In fact, an increasing body of the best scientific research indicates that we are over a decade into a cooling trend that may last for decades longer. What's worse, vK? Cooling or warming? If the alarmists don't know WTF they are talking about, is it smart to let them call the shots? I say: 'no'. 7904. concerned - 4/18/2012 9:45:26 PM An additional reason to oppose the EPA's recent actions regarding CO2 is that there is not scientific basis in reality to consider it a pollutant.
The EPA is doing nothing more creditworthy than injecting itself into politics and partisan conservation ideology, and has admitted that it has not taken the welfare of the US or its citizens into any account when it made these changes, nor weighed the relative contribution of anthropogenic CO2 production from the US in any way as far as quantity nor global warming effect against that of the rest of the world, which is clearly misfeasance, IMO. 7905. vonKreedon - 4/18/2012 9:54:43 PM Con said, "In fact, an increasing body of the best scientific research indicates that we are over a decade into a cooling trend that may last for decades longer."
Do you have a cite for this? I've got a cite from NOAA showing that 2005 and 2010 tied for the warmest years on record, globally, since such records started being kept in 1880. And NASA says that 2011 was the ninth warmest year since 1880. Doesn't seem like a cooling trend.
Regarding concensus:
• Climate Change and the Integrity of Science [PDF] letter from 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences.
• National Academies' Joint Statement [PDF] (includes G8 and 5 other countries)
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Meteorological Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Statistical Association
• Wide variety of other scientific societies [PDF]
7906. concerned - 4/18/2012 10:35:53 PM Btw, did you know that the Polar Bear is most closely related to the Irish Brown Bear that lived between 38,000 and 10,000 years ago, and that polar bears and North American Brown bears typically have fertile offspring?
This strongly suggests that, besides their coat color, which is no more an expressed genetic variation than what may be expected between a northern European and an Eskimo, polar bears' adaptations to an arctic rather than a temperate climate lifestyle is primarily 'cultural' rather than genetic or instinctual. 7907. concerned - 4/19/2012 12:29:13 AM Anything based on NOAA or NASA weather data dating from 2007 or earlier at the minimum, as some of your cites are, are flawed, since McIntyre uncovered systematic fudging of the statistics dating from the previous decades up to that period by the NOAA, all weighted toward showing a rapidly rising average global temperature. 7908. Wombat - 4/19/2012 3:48:57 PM Perhaps Concerned should ask himself as a soi-disant "conservative" how a conservative party can be advocating the weakening--and/or destruction--of an agency created by a conservative president. 7909. vonKreedon - 4/19/2012 4:35:38 PM Con - Cite please for NOAA's temperature readings for 2005, 2007, and 2011 being unreliable. 7910. concerned - 4/19/2012 4:38:54 PM I really like the NASA site animation of global temperature averages over the last several decades linked by vK, but have to wonder if it is properly normalized since there were two years in the 1930's and 1940's when no sea ice was observed during the summer in the arctic ocean, yet the graphic shows the arctic ocean temperatures as being considerably higher now than 70-80 years ago, and we have never come anywhere close to having an ice free arctic ocean at any time since the 1940's.
It has been well documented that many temperature monitoring stations at higher latitudes have been closed during the last couple of decades, leaving higher and higher proportions of the remainder left in urban centers without any correction being attempted for the 'heat island' effect. This in itself can easily account for all the reported global temperature increase since 1980.
Wombat - are you comfortable with the 'Soviet Union' approach where government agencies always become more obtrusive and powerful without limit, or have you simply never seriously considered where those limits ought to be? 7911. Wombat - 4/19/2012 5:02:38 PM Concerned,
I know that you are a historical ignoramus, but your likening of Federal agencies to Soviet-style bureaucraciers is stupid, even for you. You might want to refamiliarize yourself with the constitutional checks and balances that limit the power of all branches of the US government, in marked contrast to the former Soviet Union. 7912. Wombat - 4/19/2012 5:03:50 PM *bureaucracies* 7913. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:04:06 PM Satellite temperature records and placed into historical and pre-historical perspective
I feel more comfortable with estimating global temperature by including the satellite record which is not subject to the several uncontrolled variables I have mentioned in my last post. The satellite record is notably excluded from the official NOAA/NASA records, since they are relying on their heat island temperature stations exclusively to scare people.
The satellite record of atmospheric temperature shows a flat or declining trend over the last decade. At most, the average global temperature is now that of the medieval warm period which raises a number of interesting questions that are not being pursued, unfortunately, by the alarmists. Probably good reason for that - they would pretty much undermine or destroy their own cause if they did. 7914. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:07:06 PM Re. 7911 -
Any such linkage is in your own mind, Wombat. I take it you are comfortable with with the EPA calling CO2 a 'pollutant', even though in no reasonable or logical sense could it be considered one.
Given the above, you certainly don't have grounds to call me 'stupid' or an 'ignoramus'. 7915. concerned - 4/19/2012 5:13:15 PM It is also totally irrational to fixate on anthropogenic CO2 and ignore the orders of magnitude greater effects of water vapor on global temperature.
|
