Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Climategate      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 137
view profile
History
ClimategatePage 7 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

The whole AGW movement is a policized farce.
Doesn't seem to matter how many climatologists the world gets to prove its real when so many regular citizens are always there to convince everyone the climatologists are wrong,its funny how many end up believing the regular guy not the PHDs.

The climatologists pretty much don't care the ratio of human caused and natural caused,just that its happening at accelerated rates and tell us what we as humans can do to reduce the effects,they are not stupid,that's why we don't waste the effort to try to control the natural effects,because we can't,that's why we're attempting to controlling the only things we can control to help this problem,such as CO2 emissions,and all other such things.

After all, if we can help, then why are we not.

I remember when the worlds leaders come out together to help and Bush decided not to come,yep,what a leader,the man from one of the largest polluting countries .

Its already been shown that the same oil companies that do things like ruin our gulf and Valdez,are the same ones spending the most to lobby that this is a farce,its also been shown if restrictions are put into place how much they and their shareholders will lose in yearly profit,gee wonder where their logic comes from.

Barnum was so right on the money.Many act like the glaciers melting at alarming rates couldn't possibly be helped by tight restrictions.God forbid if we try something we can actually do,even if we cannot control the natural causes damage.

Some seem to have to have a clear sign of the percentage of natural and the percentage of man made causes before they can activate.

Must be nice to think we have that kind of time on our side.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 138
Climategate
Posted: 8/4/2010 5:55:45 PM


Must be nice to think we have that kind of time on our side.


The world didn't come to an end when the CO2 concentration was 25 times higher than it is today. So yeah, I think we have plenty of time before the apocalypse. In fact, I'm pretty sure there won't be an apocalypse.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 139
view profile
History
Climategate
Posted: 8/15/2010 12:22:15 PM
Of course the world won't end due to global warming. No matter what happens there will be some sort of rock continuing to orbit the sun. But those high CO2 concentrations you cite far predate the human presence on the planet.

What we're talking about is how long we're willing to deny that our actions today significantly impact quality of life for future humans. We don't seem to have any problem accepting that we're capable of massive intentional changes like dams, roads, cutting down entire forests, and quite literally moving mountains and rivers. But dare to imply that just maybe we might also have unintended impacts on the only planet we have to call home and the denialists raise an incredible ruckus.

We're in the midst of the sixth great species extinction event in the history of the planet. Fish all over the globe have increased mercury contamination due to fossil fuel burning. We've gone from using a sixth to half the available potable water on the planet in a few decades. And we've increased CO2 and methane atmospheric concentrations to the highest levels in human history.

But never mind all that. Odds are those of us with sufficient means to debate in this forum can simply turn up the AC, pay higher energy costs, continue to have sufficient water and food resources to finish out our personal lives. Who cares what we leave behind for future generations? Not our problem, right?

Dave
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 140
Climategate
Posted: 10/7/2010 1:46:38 PM
Cool breezes all summer, more than average rainfall predicted for the winter.
Let's have some more of this global warming.
Go out and drive.
Turn up you heaters.
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 141
Climategate
Posted: 10/8/2010 1:26:22 AM
Global Tropical Cyclone activity is at 33-year lows

While the North Atlantic sees ~10 storms per year, the annual global total is 80 to 90! So, how is the rest of the globe doing in terms of tropical cyclone (TC) activity? Absolutely cratering — and in in the Western North Pacific typhoon basin, at historical lows. Indeed, with the Earth undergoing Global Climate Disruption, natural climate variability has played the ultimate trump card and left global TC activity at 33-year lows!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/global-tropical-cyclone-activity-is-at-33-year-lows/

Good news for the rest of the globe too.
Keep up the good work humans. We can use all this global warming we can get.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 142
Climategate
Posted: 10/8/2010 5:25:07 PM


Global Tropical Cyclone activity is at 33-year lows


Sounds like the Athropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis has, once agained, failed to find agreement between prediction and observation.
 HarDayKnight
Joined: 12/27/2007
Msg: 143
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 10:22:30 AM
CountIbli,

600 years ago, you would have been one of those crazy guys who thought the world was round and that rocks could fall from the sky. As long as there's money to made from the global warning scare, there's going to be an argument as to whether it exists as a problem at all. Never mind that, for some, Environmentalism is as much a religion as Islam or Christianity. Arguing facts, like CO2 levels following temperature increases rather than the reverse, is futile. The only information they are interested in is what supports their beliefs, however flawed it is.

I have no problem with the development of energy sources that are more efficient than those currently being used. When they exist, then we can be sure that they'll make oil and coal obsolete and irrelevant. Until then, I'm enjoying my supercharged V8 guilt free.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 144
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 11:07:43 AM

The only information they are interested in is what supports their beliefs, however flawed it is.


Until then, I'm enjoying my supercharged V8 guilt free.

See, by your own admission here, you have a belief (i.e. agenda) that you have a need to support with whatever information you can find. Metaphorically speaking, your V8 is rolling on a two-way street.
 HarDayKnight
Joined: 12/27/2007
Msg: 145
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 12:56:57 PM

See, by your own admission here, you have a belief (i.e. agenda) that you have a need to support with whatever information you can find. Metaphorically speaking, your V8 is rolling on a two-way street.


Every supposed fact for human driven global warming has a scientific counter that is not only sound, but convincing to anyone with an open mind on the issue. But let's take that out of the equation. What energy source is abundant enough to efficiently replace fossil fuels at this time? That's right... None. Not even nuclear, which is the closest contender. When a viable alternative is found, sign me up. Though I'll still miss my supercharged V8. But then again, I don't heat a 3500 sq/ft. house or fly around in private jets chastising Americans about their wasteful habits either.


Since the 70's America has made huge steps toward cleaning up auto emissions and industrial pollution. There is a point when it isn't cost efficient to try and clean our act up further. Businesses move to third world countries where it's still allowed, and where there's an added incentive of cheap labor. Environmentalism is chock full of anti-capitalist whack-jobs who have no regard for protecting industry in this country. There comes a point when it just doesn't make any sense to do more. Especially when the impact cannot be substantially minimized with current technology. Where the impact is worth the effort, I'm all for it.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 146
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 1:18:02 PM
Where the impact is worth the effort, I'm all for it.

Fair enough.

The climate change agenda is not swiftly moving forward unobstructed in hopes of installing global socialism as Hannity et al would have one believe. He would make one think that he is one of the few powers keeping us all from the tree-hugging clutches of tyrannical environmentalism.

To the contrary, the whole response is creeping ahead quite slowly exactly BECAUSE of all the conflicting interests and obstacles involved in getting solutions. However, it helps if the populace in general acknowledges that there is a problem to begin with. The US does not have that solidarity yet by a long shot.

Could we have gotten men on the moon if the US populace was not behind the effort? That was back when the US was a leader in scientific advancement. Sadly, it seems that the US's leadership is falling behind in that regard.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 147
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 7:51:25 PM


To the contrary, the whole response is creeping ahead quite slowly exactly BECAUSE of all the conflicting interests and obstacles involved in getting solutions. However, it helps if the populace in general acknowledges that there is a problem to begin with. The US does not have that solidarity yet by a long shot.


A couple of years ago the LA Times reported that Al and Tipper purchased an energy-hogging mansion with a nice view of the ocean. It appears that even Al Gore doesn't really believe that the oceans are going to rise 20 feet.
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 148
Climategate
Posted: 10/12/2010 8:42:56 PM
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

The bold statements are pretty much verbatim what I've been saying for the past 10 years and the closest I've come to studying science is pouring baking soda and vinegar in a test tube in a high school class. Not hard for this simple mind to fathom I wonder what is so difficult to see for billions of others.



Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)




Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists.We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 149
Climategate
Posted: 12/11/2010 8:37:21 AM
So the guy who was communications director for James Inhofe makes some claims:

ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].

Craig Rucker, a co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, said the committee got a third of its money from other foundations. However, Rucker would not identify them or say how much his foundation would pay Marc Morano. Rucker did say that ExxonMobil did not contribute anything to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow in 2008


It's just another extremely well funded bullshit group that seeks to muddy the waters.

By way, how many of these "1000 scientists" have won a Nobel prize? I'm willing to bet that at least 80% of them have no more than the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree from Oral Roberts University.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 150
Climategate
Posted: 12/12/2010 3:28:29 PM

saying it is a 100% fact!

I certainly wouldn't claim that it is 100% fact. I actually don't recall anyone claiming that. I would say that there is a 90% chance of the claims of AGW being correct. If a doctor told me I had a 90% chance of dying soon without a particular operation, I would seriously look into getting that operation!

Now what do you have to say folks?

If AGW IS indeed found to be completely mistaken, not happening, go on about your business as before, then I say, "Yahoo!" I have no emotional investment in AGW being true. To the contrary, really.

Sadly, that "if" is quite large...

See, deniers cannot even agree on what is happening with the climate, let alone whether it is altered by human activity or not. They just seem to agree that nothing should be done to diminish or mitigate our use of fossil fuels-- how very convenient.

it was all about the damn money...

That isn't exactly a compelling point of rebuttal seeing as how almost every high profile "skeptic" can be traced to oil and coal interests if you follow "the damn money." As Halftimedad pointed out, the source of your quoted report is certainly no exception.

Speaking of, I am not too invested in the AGW skepticism of people specializing in economics, physics, astrophysics, biology, geology, mechanical engineering, meteorology, zoology, geography, gynecology, scatology, etc., Nobel Prize or not. Also, Gore does not equal climate science or AGW. What Gore is is a high profile spokesperson for cluing in the uneducated, unscientific masses on AGW. So, if Gore is seen doing donuts in a Hummer, taking a $10,000 speaking fee, or even humping his neighbor's cat, these do not refute AGW.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 151
Climategate
Posted: 12/18/2010 8:28:43 PM


I certainly wouldn't claim that it is 100% fact. I actually don't recall anyone claiming that.


True, they just say that the debate is over and try to put AGW skeptics in the same category with holocaust deniers by calling us "deniers."



See, deniers cannot even agree on what is happening with the climate, let alone whether it is altered by human activity or not.


We generally agree that the climate is warming, that humans have little impact on it, that the role of CO2 is greatly exaggerated, that the climate itself is poorly understood (particularly the roles of clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, and glaciers), that the secondary effects of warming are exaggerated and may sometimes even be beneficial, and that even if AGW proponents are 100% correct in their beliefs that schemes like the Kyoto Protocol and Cap and Trade will be financially devastating while doing nothing to stop or slow global warming.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 152
Climategate
Posted: 12/20/2010 11:28:18 PM


The only way someone could say something is poorly understood, would be to half a very good understanding of the subject, therefore you statement makes no sense.


Why do you think this is true? It's certainly possible to know that one does not have a good understanding of something, without being an expert on the subject. For example, I know essentially nothing about knitting, but i don't have to be an expert in knitting to know this. Read the IPCC reports. The scientists admit that they don't understand these things and don't have good models for them.



If you want to see humans impact first hand on the climate, travel to Asia and first order yourself some shark fin soup.

Then spend some time understanding the what role Sharks play as the top predator in keeping things in check in the oceans.

Then you will understand that humans have a pretty big impact on the climate with respect to the oceans ability to produce oxygen and because shark fining goes for the most part unchecked.*

That is one way Man is impacting the climate, which can not be denied, but it has been and probably will be ignored because the animals getting killed (caught live, finned and then dumped back into the oceans) are not cute and cuddly like dolphins and puppies.


Scientifically speaking this is very sloppy thinking. You can claim that shark defining has a big impact on the climate, but in science you have to make more than just claims. You actually have to demonstrate it. I think you may have gone to the Al Gore School of Climatology.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 153
Climategate
Posted: 12/21/2010 10:06:17 AM

True, they just say that the debate is over and try to put AGW skeptics in the same category with holocaust deniers by calling us "deniers."

Betting the global ecosystem on a 10% chance of being right is not only an awful bet, it is irresponsible.

even if AGW proponents are 100% correct in their beliefs that schemes like the Kyoto Protocol and Cap and Trade will be financially devastating while doing nothing to stop or slow global warming.

A fair point but one that does not require AGW skepticism. If only liberals agree that a problem exists, should anyone be surprised that most of the proposed solutions are liberal? The political debate should be HOW to address the issue, not IF there is even an issue. Newt Gingrich is a notable exception, but he would rather devote his time to lambasting Obama at every turn and defending theocratic principles than ever admitting on Fox News that he accepts AGW as true.

One of the biggest problems I have with the Republican party is its Biblical "fact" trumps science stance. It is the same sort of thinking that made the earth the center of the solar system.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 154
Climategate
Posted: 12/21/2010 7:17:20 PM


How is it sloppy?

I have given you a, both a cause and an effect.


What you haven't given is any evidence for your cliams.



If you would like to challenge those claims please feel free, if not I will assume you went to the Fox school of denying stuff that you do not fully understand.



So seeing as you are too lazy here is a link for you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+impact+of+shark+population+decline+on+the+climate


I looked at the first 3 links that popped up. None of them said anything about the effect of shark population on the climate. If you're going to make a claim then the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that it's true. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 155
Climategate
Posted: 12/23/2010 9:45:44 PM


From the 3rd link, 8th paragraph down:


The third link for me only has 7 paragraphs.



...Sharks are the ocean’s apex predator because they are at top of the food chain and they have few enemies. But this high rank doesn’t come without duties; they are in charge of helping to keep the ocean’s delicate balance of other fish and some marine mammals. Because they seem to eat whatever there is most of, they help control the overpopulation of any one species. This in turn keeps that species from depleting its food source, and so on, right to the last link in the food chain. On the bottom rung is where you’d find plant plankton or “phytoplankton.” This little gem is what produces our oxygen. But this oxygen producer is already on a decline due to climate change and pollution...


I noticed that the paragraph says that the phytoplankton are on the decline because of climate change and pollution, not shark-finning. The article doesn't present any evidence that phytoplankton are on the decline because of climate change, pollution, or shark-finning.

The article claims that there's a delicate balance, but provides no evidence that the balance is delicate. In the absence of sharks, other predators and starvation will keep populations in check. The author takes his anthropomorphization of nature too seriously. Nature didn't plan for humans, but then again, nature doesn't plan for anything. Life adapts and evolves. Also keep in mind that as sharks are over-hunted the price of shark fins will increase which will reduce the demand for shark fins which will allow the shark population to recover.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 156
Climategate
Posted: 12/24/2010 8:58:16 PM


Seriously I enjoy a good debate but unfortunately I have a feeling most of the information I am presenting you with is going right over your head.


No, it's not going over my head. You simply haven't provided evidence for your claims.



So how about this:

You prove to me that over fishing sharks for their fins is not affecting the climate and I will happy to continue.


This is the logical fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. You made the positive claim, you bear the burden not me.



It does explain the roll the top predator plays and how when it is removed the checks and balance's are gone and lower level species will suffer.


I'm aware of what the article asserts. Now, where's the evidence?



If you want something that is easier to understand watch the documentary: "Shark Water"


What I want is evidence. Or is that concept over your head?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 157
Climategate
Posted: 12/26/2010 9:48:58 PM

If you are able to discredit or want to question what I am claiming with evidence that is contradictory, I will be happy to debate that with you.

But if you can only come back with, I need more poof, you response will be ignored.


Before you can produce more proof have first have to provide some proof. You still haven't done that. For example:



The wiping out of sharks, one of the top predators at the top of the food chain, could bring about chaos in the ocean ecosystem that could in time even affect the oxygen levels in the atmosphere. The main source of food for sharks are smaller, plankton consuming fish. Without the sharks to control their numbers, they could reproduce out of control, greatly reducing the amount of plankton in the sea, whose photosynthesis contribute much to the amount of oxygen in the air.


There are a lot of "coulds" in those three sentences but no evidence that even the 90% reduction in shark populations globally has had any climatic effects. Apparently you haven't figured out that dire predictions and unsubstantiated claims are not the same as evidence.

Edit: Sadly this seems to be the norm amongst environmentalists. You make scary predictions and hope that no one will notice that you have absolutely no evidence to support them. And then demand massive government intervention.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 158
Climategate
Posted: 12/27/2010 2:12:03 AM
Before you can produce more proof have first have to provide some proof. You still haven't done that.

Don't be a f*cking idiot... He has provided you with evidence...

Clearly you have no better clue how to debate science than you do constitutional issues (which you always seem to take an ass-kicking on as well)...

Having provided you with evidence it is not now his responsibility to provide the research that the cited evidence is based upon, or the research that underlies that underlying research, etc... That is tantamount to demanding NASA prove its space research by citing every piece of relevant evidence all the way back to Isaac Newton's first treatise... It's up to you to disprove the evidence he has given if you disagree with the conclusions drawn in it (usually done by contradicting the research which underlies the evidence cited) not merely demand further layers of evidence that underlie the evidence you cannot disprove...

Try disproving his evidence with equal research to the contrary... If you have the chops to do it (a highly questionable propostion in it's own right)... No-one will be holding thier breath waiting for it...
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 159
Climategate
Posted: 12/27/2010 10:24:12 AM


Don't be a f*cking idiot... He has provided you with evidence...


No, he has provided me with claims and dire predictions. In fairness he did provide evidence that shark populations have decreased, but provided absolutely no evidence that this has had an effect on the climate, oxygen levels, or even plankton populations.



Clearly you have no better clue how to debate science than you do constitutional issues (which you always seem to take an ass-kicking on as well)...


That's funny. When it came to the "Welfare Clause" I provided support for my position from both Jefferson and Madison. You then pointed me to Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution" as if he supported your interpretation of it (that the Welfare Clause gives an independent power to Congress to create laws for the general welfare), when in fact he supported my position that it is not a separate power. Even Alexander Hamilton, who argued for an expanded interpretation, agreed that it is not a separate power. The General Welfare Clause merely gives the reason why Congress is allowed to lay and collect taxes. It does not give Congress the power to spend money and enact laws under color of "promoting the general welfare." Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton are explicit about this.



No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
--Alexander Hamilton



The Constitution says “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts &c., provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.” I do not consider this clause as reaching the point. I suppose its meaning to be, that Congress may collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare, in those cases wherein the Constitution empowers them to act for the general welfare. To suppose that it was meant to give them a distinct substantive power, to do any act which might tend to the general welfare, is to render all the enumerations useless, and to make their powers unlimited. We must seek the power therefore in some other clause of the Constitution.
--Thomas Jefferson



Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power, which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
--James Madison



Having provided you with evidence it is not now his responsibility to provide the research that the cited evidence is based upon


That's exactly what his responsibility is. He provided me with claims, when he needs to provide me with evidence. So where are the peer-reviewed articles that support his position?



That is tantamount to demanding NASA prove its space research by citing every piece of relevant evidence all the way back to Isaac Newton's first treatise...


No it isn't.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 160
Climategate
Posted: 12/28/2010 10:04:52 PM

Also keep in mind that as sharks are over-hunted the price of shark fins will increase which will reduce the demand for shark fins which will allow the shark population to recover.

This sounds good and plausible on paper and is probably straight from the free market manifesto, but the process pans out very differently in reality. One just needs to look at the increasing demand for oil worldwide as the price continues to climb.

So, as prices increase, demand does not necessarily decrease. Sometimes higher prices just signal to the privileged that a certain commodity is exclusive and even more worth having. Even if demand does decrease, it often isn't to a great enough degree to allow certain sensitive populations to recover.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 161
Climategate
Posted: 12/29/2010 5:58:24 PM


Having provided you with evidence it is not now his responsibility to provide the research that the cited evidence is based upon


That's exactly what his responsibility is. He provided me with claims, when he needs to provide me with evidence.

What a load of rhetorical hogwash, utter bovine excrement... If I write an article that states something to the effect "The UN Study on (fill in the blank)... says", it does not then become my responsibility to provide you with a copy of that UN study, it's up to you to get off your lazy ass and get it yourself...

Likewise, if I point you to an article that says "The UN Study on (fill in the blank)... says", it does not become my responsibility to provide you with a copy of that UN study (or even show you where to find one in this case), it's up to you to get off your lazy ass and get it yourself...

But of course, your 'objections' were never meant to be honest debate or even particularly intellectual... That's why you keep demanding a single source that contains every relevant piece of evidence all rolled into one tidy package... as if that condition were even relevant...

Your objections are not objective or even a little honest...

I'll bet if I "claimed" that a particular car could break through a particular barrier at 80 mph, then gave you a link to the force generated by the sudden deceleration of that particular car from 80 mph and a link to the impact resistance of the particular kind of barrier (which, coincidentaly, is less than the force generated by the deceleration), you would try to demand that I hadn't established that the car could go through the barrier... And all because I didn't give you a single source that specifically tested that car crashing through that barrier, despite the fact that physics dictates it will...


That is tantamount to demanding NASA prove its space research by citing every piece of relevant evidence all the way back to Isaac Newton's first treatise...


No it isn't.

Yes it is... Rather than debunking the information in the links he gave you (by, oh say, showing that statistics quoted were wrong or that studies cited didn't support the the information or that some element violated established scientific laws or some such) you are doing exactly what I described above... You are expecting him to provide you with the author's research and that isn't his responsibility... It's up to you to get off that pile of rhetorical bovine excrement and discredit the source if you can... Not simply demand all relevant facts in a single source or merely say "Nuh-uh"...

Oh, and by the way, this is the "claim" he actually made:

If you want to see humans impact first hand on the climate, travel to Asia and first order yourself some shark fin soup.

Then spend some time understanding the what role Sharks play as the top predator in keeping things in check in the oceans.

Then you will understand that humans have a pretty big impact on the climate with respect to the oceans ability to produce oxygen and because shark fining goes for the most part unchecked.*

That is one way Man is impacting the climate, which can not be denied, but it has been and probably will be ignored because the animals getting killed (caught live, finned and then dumped back into the oceans) are not cute and cuddly like dolphins and puppies.

Every article he linked you to in subsequent posts provides evidence for one or more parts of that "claim"...

The third link for me only has 7 paragraphs.

That's funny... when I followed the link he gave to that article to make it easier for you I found a lot more than 7 paragraphs... Either someone can't count, or is just trying to play stupid little rhetorical tricks...


What I want is evidence. Or is that concept over your head?

Again, he has provided it... You just can't actually debunk any of the major elements... This seems to be a theme...

I, on the other hand, DID my job and back-tracked the statements made in the information he cited (rather than simply toss around a bunch of bovine excrement poorly disguised as discussion and demand "Do my work for me or I won't believe you"... The statistics and the studies cited led to a treasure trove of peer-reviewed articles and corraborating information
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Climategate