Now its Global Cooling

[Comish]

 

He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Bullsh!t. No other way to put it. That's bullsh!t.

 

If he is under fire from the peer reviewed community it's almost certainly because the data doesn't support his contentions.

 

We really need to get past the claim that all opinions are equally valid.

 

bullsh#t more aptly applies to your continual condescension.

At least it's open now...........Carl's opinion is much more valid than a PH.D in climatology.

Why is that? Is it because he is openly ladled with the +1's of his fellow believers?

[Comish]

 

 

 

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

If we're really unhappy with "alarmist extremism" and want to have a real dialog, why are we following that with the entire next paragraph, which is alarmist in nature?

 

And why does the solution have to be wholesale? Can't we do this in steps? America reducing our emissions won't fix the whole problem, so let's fix none of the problem. That's not a real dialog, that's a temper tantrum.

 

How, exactly, without rancor at the people you deem to be "opponents" in this discussion, will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

 

I agree with everything you say in this post,,,, except please point out the rancor on my part.

I believe that description more aptly applies to those "offended" that not all of us are so easily cowed by the denigration terminology such as "flat earth society".

And, I would reference again my friend in climatology at UNL. He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Ah yes...........the vaunted "tolerance" of the left.....

 

Can you answer the question? How will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

 

Is this a serious question?

Regulations, regulations, regulations.

Obsessive, obscene and punitive

[carlfense]

 

 

He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Bullsh!t. No other way to put it. That's bullsh!t.

 

If he is under fire from the peer reviewed community it's almost certainly because the data doesn't support his contentions.

 

We really need to get past the claim that all opinions are equally valid.

 

bullsh#t more aptly applies to your continual condescension.

At least it's open now...........Carl's opinion is much more valid than a PH.D in climatology.

Why is that? Is it because he is openly ladled with the +1's of his fellow believers?

 

Do you think that all opinions are equally valid? Yes or no?

 

Also, do you think that we should give more weight to the opinions of people with PH.Ds in climatology?

 

 

(If you stop to think about and/or compare the answers to the above questions you might come to an interesting conclusion.)

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

 

 

 

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

If we're really unhappy with "alarmist extremism" and want to have a real dialog, why are we following that with the entire next paragraph, which is alarmist in nature?

 

And why does the solution have to be wholesale? Can't we do this in steps? America reducing our emissions won't fix the whole problem, so let's fix none of the problem. That's not a real dialog, that's a temper tantrum.

 

How, exactly, without rancor at the people you deem to be "opponents" in this discussion, will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

 

I agree with everything you say in this post,,,, except please point out the rancor on my part.

I believe that description more aptly applies to those "offended" that not all of us are so easily cowed by the denigration terminology such as "flat earth society".

And, I would reference again my friend in climatology at UNL. He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Ah yes...........the vaunted "tolerance" of the left.....

 

Can you answer the question? How will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

 

Is this a serious question?

Regulations, regulations, regulations.

Obsessive, obscene and punitive

 

So you are against regulations? I am guessing you also oppose the EPA. I am guessing you hate clean drinking water if that is the case. Regulations are there for a reason, because something in the past was a major issue and it took regulation to solve it, it's not just about controlling the public.

[Junior]

 

 

He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Bullsh!t. No other way to put it. That's bullsh!t.

 

If he is under fire from the peer reviewed community it's almost certainly because the data doesn't support his contentions.

 

We really need to get past the claim that all opinions are equally valid.

 

bullsh#t more aptly applies to your continual condescension.

At least it's open now...........Carl's opinion is much more valid than a PH.D in climatology.

Why is that? Is it because he is openly ladled with the +1's of his fellow believers?

 

 

 

Ha! I could walk down the sidewalk on campus here and find at least 5 Ph.D.s in climatology that would disagree with your buddy. Look, I've seen other Ph.Ds get shouted down at conferences and seminars. And it is typically because their science is bunk. Either their methods are wrong or their conclusions don't fit with the data. Generally people are very respectful of dissenting opinion, unless they are using junk science to support a false claim.

 

Now if you want to somehow prove to us how your buddy was incorrectly subjected to ridicule and criticism, please do. Alternatively, provide his name and we can all have a look at his publications on the matter.

[Comish]

 

 

 

 

I don't even know why this is an argument? Why not try to have a cleaner planet with cleaner air to breath? Even if it is a "hoax". I just do not see the logic in denying this. Is it because Big Oil and Politicians (mainly republican) deny it? Really, I just can't wrap my head around as to why this is an issue.

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

Fox News, CNN and MSNBC have had this debate numerous times. Bill Maher has debates with people on his panel who have a conflicting view on this issue. So I really don't know what shows you are watching but it's probably the wrong shows to watch.

Also, if you didn't hear the news last week. Obama struck a deal with the Chinese president for both countries to reduce emissions by 30%. If the chinese will follow through is a different story but the issue is being approached to chinese.

 

That wasn't a deal, that was a capitulation.

If you are happy that the Chinese have "been approached", good for you.

I'll be happy IF and WHEN they actually transfer verbiage into action.

But I won't be holding my breath.

 

And the only way to get the chinese to do this is to engage in talks with the chinese. Sanctions won't hurt them, and war definitely won't solve a damn thing. So all we can do is talk and debate with the chinese and state the facts. That is the reality my friend.

 

I really hope/wish you are right.

Nobody is advocating sanctions and/or war.

Unfortunately, reality will trump wishful fantasy.

Where is the incentive for China to play nice with anyone?

[Comish]

 

 

 

He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Bullsh!t. No other way to put it. That's bullsh!t.

 

If he is under fire from the peer reviewed community it's almost certainly because the data doesn't support his contentions.

 

We really need to get past the claim that all opinions are equally valid.

 

bullsh#t more aptly applies to your continual condescension.

At least it's open now...........Carl's opinion is much more valid than a PH.D in climatology.

Why is that? Is it because he is openly ladled with the +1's of his fellow believers?

 

Do you think that all opinions are equally valid? Yes or no?

 

Also, do you think that we should give more weight to the opinions of people with PH.Ds in climatology?

 

No, I don't.

As an example, I don't think the opinion of an attorney in this manner is equally valid with that of a scientist with a PH.D

And I certainly don't think my opinion on science is valid in any meaningful manner EXCEPT to question or be skeptical when the 97% number is bandied about as gospel when the survey that birthed that infamous number is controversial at inception.

Also, I think skepticism is warranted when proponents must keep moving the goal posts; i.e. from Global Warming......to Climate Change....to whatever label allows the ignoring of some pesky data undermining previous claims. Such as 18 years of "pausing".

[Junior]

No, I don't.

 

As an example, I don't think the opinion of an attorney in this manner is equally valid with that of a scientist with a PH.D

And I certainly don't think my opinion on science is valid in any meaningful manner EXCEPT to question or be skeptical when the 97% number is bandied about as gospel when the survey that birthed that infamous number is controversial at inception.

Also, I think skepticism is warranted when proponents must keep moving the goal posts; i.e. from Global Warming......to Climate Change....to whatever label allows the ignoring of some pesky data undermining previous claims. Such as 18 years of "pausing".

 

 

Tell me why I should believe the second hand word of an unnamed "UNL climatologist" over the published, peer-reviewed work of climate scientists who's names have been put on their research.

 

If you want to talk about the change of the name from global warming to climate change, ask your GOP buddy Frank Luntz. He's the spin doctor responsible for that one (the same guy who brought us the "death tax" rather than estate tax).

[carlfense]

 

Do you think that all opinions are equally valid? Yes or no?

 

Also, do you think that we should give more weight to the opinions of people with PH.Ds in climatology?

No, I don't.

 

I agree.

 

As an example, I don't think the opinion of an attorney in this manner is equally valid with that of a scientist with a PH.D

I agree. Do you think the opinion of two scientists with Ph.Ds is more credible than the work of a single scientist with a Ph.D?

 

And I certainly don't think my opinion on science is valid in any meaningful manner EXCEPT to question or be skeptical when the 97% number is bandied about as gospel when the survey that birthed that infamous number is controversial at inception.

Also, I think skepticism is warranted when proponents must keep moving the goal posts; i.e. from Global Warming......to Climate Change....to whatever label allows the ignoring of some pesky data undermining previous claims. Such as 18 years of "pausing".

Hmmmmm.

[knapplc]

 

Can you answer the question? How will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

Is this a serious question?

Regulations, regulations, regulations.

Obsessive, obscene and punitive

 

It's a serious question not being given serious answers, unfortunately.

 

Can you, specifically, talk about those and how they affect our industry? Which regulations? Instituted when? How punitive are they, and in what way?

[carlfense]

Still trying to reconcile the ideas that we should listen to someone because he is a climatologist while ignoring the consensus of climatologists.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/06/novel-accounting-greenhouse-gas-regulations

The EPA reckons the benefits of CO2 emissions range from range from $9.5 billion to $94 billion in 2030 (in 2011 dollars) depending on how the rule is implemented and the discount rate used; at a 3% discount rate, (the most commonly selected), the benefits are $31 billion. Applying Mr Viscusi and Mr Gayer's percentages, the American benefit would only range from $2 billion to $7 billion - not enough to justify the $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in costs. However, the EPA also, in keeping with traditional practice, adds in the co-benefits- the reduction in deaths and respiratory illnesses that comes through lower emissions of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and soot that result when carbon emissions are also reduced. This, too, is somewhat contentious because the EPA assumes that mortality from exposure to soot continues to decline even at low concentrations for which little or no empirical data exists - often to concentrations well below threshholds already mandated in federal law. These benefits are worth $23 billion to $62 billion in 2030, and serve to vault total benefits well past total costs, irrespective of the benefits of reduced CO2 emissions.

[Junior]

Still trying to reconcile the ideas that we should listen to someone because he is a climatologist while ignoring the consensus of climatologists.

 

 

Yep, that's a tough one. As is the fact that he remains unnamed, uncredentialed, and generally unverified as existing.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

Still trying to reconcile the ideas that we should listen to someone because he is a climatologist while ignoring the consensus of climatologists.

 

 

Yep, that's a tough one. As is the fact that he remains unnamed, uncredentialed, and generally unverified as existing.

 

I know a guy that says Global Warming is real and he stayed at a holiday inn express last night.

[Comish]

 

Still trying to reconcile the ideas that we should listen to someone because he is a climatologist while ignoring the consensus of climatologists.

 

 

Yep, that's a tough one. As is the fact that he remains unnamed, uncredentialed, and generally unverified as existing.

 

I guess I understand your skepticism as it relates to this...

And my answer is he is unnamed because I've tangentally brought him into this discussion without contacting him first. I don't think it's my province to name him (even though, if YOU, as you claim, can recite 5 others in the department) would certainly recognize him because of past achievements and public testimony on various factors in the last 20+ odd years. So, I understand your reticence and if you choose not to believe me, it's fine.

But be assured he is credentialed and fairly well known.

As to Carl trying to reconcile listening to a climatologist while disagreeing with other climatologists...........that is exactly my point. Not everyone agrees. Certainly not everyone is going to publicly disagree when there are grants to chase.