PDA

View Full Version : Here we go again!


paraclete
Nov 26, 2010, 07:19 PM
In a few days various exalted personages, that is those who seem to know more that the rest of us, will meet in Cancun Mexico to talk up global warming and climate change. There has been little promotion of these talks as there was at the last summit except for a new report saying we have been right all along, temperature is rising. My quibble is not with whether temperatures are rising, although I do think the statistics are a little short term to be sure of anything, but with the assertion that our life style causes it and we have the ability to stop or reverse it.

When they can get a real correlation between the increase in greenhouse gases and the increase in temperature I might believe them but until then I remain a skeptic and squarely in the camp of this fits a long term natural trend of interglacial period temperatures and our activities are coincidential.

tomder55
Nov 27, 2010, 03:43 AM
Cancun ? Well there they know it will not snow ,and chances are good there will be "warm" days.It appears they've learned not to hold these conferences in places it might snow.

Two weeks in the sun ,sucking down margarita's, to have a go at another attempt at creating a tradable global carbon market. If they fail to agree this time ;well ,at least they'll come home with a good tan .

It'll fail again because the Chinese object to the pesky and "inconvenient "American provision that all pledges be “measurable, reportable and verifiable.”

Nothing meaningful will happen there .They have at least learned their lesson about building up expectations. Perhaps last year they were seduced by what they believed was the magical powers of persuasion of the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner. This year ,he's nursing stitches from a basketbrawl game ;and few world leaders will attend at all.

This will be a meeting of bureaucratic apparatchik partying by night ,sleeping in cabanas or under the sun by day... all on the taxpayer's dime.

TUT317
Nov 27, 2010, 04:18 AM
It'll fail again because the Chinese object to the pesky and "inconvenient "American provision that all pledges be “measurable, reportable and verifiable.”

Hi Tom,

I think this is correct. In the end the earth may be warming but the available data doesn't support this claim. As it stands the evidence for global warning is inconclusive.

Regards

Tut

paraclete
Nov 27, 2010, 05:45 AM
As it stands the evidence for global warning is inconclusive.

Which warning was that Tut? The warning not to believe everything we are told? Perhaps not to believe the warning from that exalted personage Gore? I think we should pay attention to some other things that might cause some big changes in the next century or so. Global warming might be the least of our worries

excon
Nov 27, 2010, 06:35 AM
Hello:

Here's my take on it. I'm NOT a scientist, but throwing garbage into the air IS going to do something bad. I don't need a scientist to tell me that... Besides, we ARE running OUT of fossil fuels, so even if they DON'T cause global warming, we're going to have to find an alternative in any case...

So, why don't we concentrate on THAT?? IF global warming IS true, we're going to kill TWO birds with one stone... If it's NOT true, we're still going to kill ONE bird... That's good, no?

excon

PS> Actually we'll kill THREE birds with one stone... We'll STOP enriching our enemy's, and maybe build up our OWN economy... That's good, no??

cdad
Nov 27, 2010, 07:04 AM
Hello:

Here's my take on it. I'm NOT a scientist, but throwing garbage into the air IS going to do something bad. I don't need a scientist to tell me that... Besides, we ARE running OUT of fossil fuels, so even if they DON'T cause global warming, we're going to have to find an alternative in any case....

So, why don't we concentrate on THAT??? IF global warming IS true, we're gonna kill TWO birds with one stone.... If it's NOT true, we're still gonna kill ONE bird... That's good, no??

excon

PS> Actually we'll kill THREE birds with one stone... We'll STOP enriching our enemy's, and maybe build up our OWN economy... That's good, no???

I agree we shouldn't just put junk into the air water and land but lets face it. This carbon credit thing is just a transfer of wealth. We have tighter controls at least here in America already. But lets face it. We can't be the only ones and there is truly nothing we can do to "make" the rest of the world comply. And the giant sloth of government isn't going to move quickly into anything unless they can make a buck off it or gain votes. Even with our current technology we could double the gas milage of cars but the government is stopping us from doing so. We as consumers need to steer the technology and also get out of the rut we have been in.

excon
Nov 27, 2010, 07:59 AM
We can't be the only ones and there is truely nothing we can do to "make" the rest of the world comply... Hello again, dad:

I wasn't supporting any particular legislation. I'm just pointing out a problem and a possible solution. My POINT is that the problem and its solution have NOTHING to do with whether you BELIEVE in global warming, the Goricle, or climategate... Because THAT is where the argument seems to focus. It MISSES the mark. I wonder if HATRED for Al Gore and all things leftwards, blinds us to the real problems we're facing. It LOOKS that way to me.

No, dad. We can't "make" the world comply... But we can LEAD the world, like we always have, so that it WANTS to comply. And, we DO that by making alternative energy PROFITABLE. We fan the flames of green technology by offering government incentives. Yes, it involves some spending, or as I prefer to call it, INVESTMENT. The Chinese are doing it. We really don't want them to get the lead in that industry, do we?

Truly, it'll solve ALL our problems... Really - ALL of 'em.

excon

PS> Yes, I know... My friend tom and I agree. The technology has NOT yet revealed itself to us. To ME it means that we haven't invested enough. To tom, my guess is, it means we've invested too much, or it's too soon, and WAITING for the technology to come about is the thing to do.

PPS> If it also happens to solve the problem - or NON existent problem - of global warming, that's an EXTRA benefit.

cdad
Nov 27, 2010, 08:17 AM
The technology exists today that we can use to go green. But the very people that scream green don't want it. The other part of the equation is we have to learn to accept failure. Yes I said it. We need to learn when we have made a mistake to correct our compass and move on. This do over mentality isn't cutting it. Another thing that isn't being addressed is the risk factor. It seems the line being towed currently doesn't want risk and thinks it has to be an absolute winner every time they make a commitment. For every "win" there is a loss somewhere. We need to mitigate those losses carefully in order to make a future.

tickle
Nov 27, 2010, 09:27 AM
My son just spent time working in Birmingham AL. He told me they don't recycle anything there. It just goes in one big garbage bin.

Has anyone seen the commercial down there about plastic water bottles. It's a Bottle on a board table after a meeting and it says something like here for a minute but forever in a land fill.

I know for sure we are consistent here in Ontario at least, and I guess I can speak for other provinces as well. Maybe some of our Canadian members in different provinces can chime in. We employ many people in our garbage sorting facilities to make sure it is actually done at the bottom line.

So I guess what I am saying is everyone has to get their act together to initiate climate chain, and that would almost be impossible to do given the scope of area and people involved.

If Birmingham AL can't recycle anything, then I guess that says a lot.

How many actually posting here sort their garbage, wet, dry, compostable. I hardly have any wet garbage aside from meat scraps and they can't go in my composter, but all organic stuff does, and that goes back into my garden after its composted. I hardly have any wet garbage that has to go to the dump.

Tick

tomder55
Nov 27, 2010, 09:52 AM
How many actually posting here sort their garbage, wet, dry, compostable. I hardly have any wet garbage aside from meat scraps and they can't go in my composter, but all organic stuff does, and that goes back into my garden after its composted. I hardly have any wet garbage that has to go to the dump.

How fast can I raise my hand for all the above ? My wet garbage is indeed the smallest container. I even have the advantage of a black bear who is willing to turn my compost periodically .

I don't drink water from plastic bottles .Everyone who does should research Bisphenol A (BPA). I filter tap water and store it in metal hiking bottles. Besides I'm cheap and think even discounted retail water is a rip off.

excon
Nov 27, 2010, 09:57 AM
How many actually posting here sort their garbage,Hello tick:

Before your post, I would have thought that the entire country was on board with recycling.. Maybe it's because I live on the left coast. But even the deep south thinks recycling is good... No??

I've got to get out more.

excon

speechlesstx
Nov 27, 2010, 10:06 AM
Yes ex, throwing trash in the air is bad, but this isn't about climate policy any more (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy#ixzz16VG8dnuv).


First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

tickle
Nov 27, 2010, 10:14 AM
Hello tick:

Before your post, I would have thought that the entire country was on board with recycling.. Maybe it's because I live on the left coast. But even the deep south thinks recycling is good... No???

I've got to get out more.

excon


Son noticed it because recycling is second nature to him, so when he had recycleable material, he started looking for somewhere to put it in his hotel and was told, no just put it in the regular garbage. We have coloured boxes here, blue boxes are recycling. How do you do it ? Do you have color coded boxes ? All recycling is put out at the curb in clear plastic bags.

Tick

excon
Nov 27, 2010, 10:21 AM
How do you do it ? Hello again, tick:

The city provides containers for garbage, recycle, glass, and yard waste. There's a fine if you put stuff in the WRONG container.

Doesn't EVERY city do that?

excon

tomder55
Nov 27, 2010, 10:24 AM
We have the color coded bins. The only thing is that I can't vouch for what the carters do once they pick up. This is NY .

excon
Nov 27, 2010, 10:28 AM
Yes ex, throwing trash in the air is bad, but this isn't about climate policy any moreHello again, Steve:

Yeah, he has his agenda. I'm just trying to save the world.

excon

tomder55
Nov 27, 2010, 10:59 AM
Edenhofer is a UN IPCC official ,so his agenda carries some weight into this meeting .

Here is another guy who let out what his true desire was after the Copenhagen meeting .

'Given the failure of Copenhagen, I'm inclined to believe that semi-annual conferences are not the way to go. Instead, I'd like to see the United Nations assemble an international and permanent emergency session that is parliamentary in nature (i.e. representative and accountable) and dedicated to debating and acting on the problem of anthropogenic climate change (a sub-parliament, if you will). The decisions of this governing board would be binding and impact on all the nations of the world.'"[George Dvorsky, a director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies]
Sentient Developments: Five simple reasons why the Copenhagen Climate Conference failed (http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2009/12/five-simple-reasons-why-copenhagen.html)

This is not about the earth warming or cooling,or if we can find the next energy source. This whole charade is the latest attempt at world governance.

When that is realized and the Kyoto process finally mercifully dies then perhaps rational diologue and true science can again emerge.

speechlesstx
Nov 27, 2010, 12:24 PM
This is not about the earth warming or cooling,or if we can find the next energy source. This whole charade is the latest attempt at world governance.

Edenhofer touched on that, too, in the same interview. He said, "basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization."

With Climategate, the science president's administration making crap up to stop drilling in the gulf, the Goracle's admission that his support for ethanol subsidies was just to get votes and these clowns admitting that science is beside the point, why isn't everyone fed up with this hoax?

cdad
Nov 27, 2010, 12:33 PM
Edenhofer touched on that, too, in the same interview. He said, "basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization."

With Climategate, the science president's administration making crap up to stop drilling in the gulf, the Goracle's admission that his support for ethanol subsidies was just to get votes and these clowns admitting that science is beside the point, why isn't everyone fed up with this hoax?

Its not a hoax. It has grown beyond that to a religion. And a very dangerous one at that.

NeedKarma
Nov 27, 2010, 12:50 PM
And we know how dangerous religion can be.

excon
Nov 27, 2010, 01:31 PM
why isn't everyone fed up with this hoax?Hello again, Steve:

Doncha remember when I said it doesn't matter if we believe it or NOT? The solution to OTHER, more pressing problems will fix climate change, IF it's a hoax, or if it's not. You're not saying, are you, that you don't want to fix our energy problem because Al Gore is full of it about global warming?? I think you ARE saying that...

Boy, is THAT head in the sand thinking.

excon

PS> By the way, if WE fix our energy problem, it'll nip the liberal global government plan in the bud too. If you're soooo pissed at the libs for trying that, I'd think you'd be on board... No, huh?

paraclete
Nov 28, 2010, 12:36 AM
Its not a hoax. It has grown beyond that to a religion. And a very dangerous one at that.

Agree with you in that, and given the views it has all the appearances of Nazism. You are allowed one view and only one, Zieg Heil!

speechlesstx
Nov 29, 2010, 10:50 AM
Yes, ex, how can I forget? Here's the thing, if we don't know that there is any such thing as anthropological global warming, what are we fixing?

excon
Nov 29, 2010, 11:00 AM
what are we fixing?Hello again, Steve:

We're fixing the problem running out of oil causes. That's a REAL problem. If we FIX it, we'll ALSO fix anthropological global warming, if there IS such a thing.

You're not saying, are you, that if there isn't such a thing, then we shouldn't fix our energy problem? Nahhh, you're not saying that... Are you? Dude! I think you ARE saying that.

excon

paraclete
Nov 29, 2010, 01:32 PM
Hello again, Steve:

We're fixing the problem running out of oil causes. That's a REAL problem. If we FIX it, we'll ALSO fix anthropological global warming, if there IS such a thing.

You're not saying, are you, that if there isn't such a thing, then we shouldn't fix our energy problem? Nahhh, you're not saying that... Are you? Dude! I think you ARE saying that.

excon

Now Ex there's another problem we think we need a fix for that the evidence is fairly thin for, what you are really saying we can't get it out of the gound fast enough and refined and we need a fix for that, now that I can agree with that.

speechlesstx
Nov 29, 2010, 02:59 PM
What's your definition of "fixing?"

Like remaking the whole health care industry to take care of a small percentage of needy people, which doesn't even cover everyone and provides a growing number of waivers (http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/patient/appapps.html) (including two unions that lobbied for Obamacare, insurance companies, one county and a state agency that helps people find insurance)?

That kind of fixing? Yeah, the kind of fixing that provides expensive, complicated, burdensome solutions looking for a problem.

paraclete
Nov 29, 2010, 05:06 PM
What's your definition of "fixing?"

Like remaking the whole health care industry to take care of a small percentage of needy people, which doesn't even cover everyone and provides a growing number of waivers (http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/patient/appapps.html) (including two unions that lobbied for Obamacare, insurance companies, one county and a state agency that helps people find insurance)?

That kind of fixing? Yeah, the kind of fixing that provides expensive, complicated, burdensome solutions looking for a problem.

Why the dummy spit? I have no idea why you have to link a failed health care system with climate policy. If your politicians are too inept to see a way out of your problems then get rid of them.

You have these problems because you have an aversion to social security solutions to the problems of the poor and under privileged and think that capitalism provides a solution to all problems rather than being part of the problem

I agree that some things don't need fixing. I don't happen to think cap n trade will fix climate problems, nor do I think putting a price on carbon is necessary or a solution to anything. There is a problem we all will have to face and that is the increasing price of oil and energy and along with that food and many other things, right around the time someone thinks it is a good idea to peg wages at the low end. You can pay for your problems with higher taxes or you can pay with higher prices but you can't escape paying this side of the divide.

speechlesstx
Nov 29, 2010, 05:17 PM
Why the dummy spit?

I have no idea what a "dummy spit" is, but the example I gave is entirely relevant to my point, why should I endorse expensive, complicated, burdensome solutions looking for a problem?

paraclete
Nov 29, 2010, 06:18 PM
I have no idea what a "dummy spit" is, but the example I gave is entirely relevant to my point, why should I endorse expensive, complicated, burdensome solutions looking for a problem?

As I said if you can't convience your politicians, dump them. I have agreed with you we don't need much of this environmental crap produced by the left side of politics. BUT there is a difference between health care and climate policy. I don't like populist politics at the best of times but there are things a rich nation can do to look after its people. One of your right leaning politicians thought no child should be left behind, at the same time he though tax cuts and playing with housing a good idea. Politics is full of both bad and good ideas the trick is to know which of them are really needed

excon
Nov 29, 2010, 06:34 PM
What's your definition of "fixing?"

Like remaking the whole health care industry to take care of a small percentage of needy peopleHello again, Steve:

Nahh. I'm a capitalist after all. Hefty tax incentives for innovation. Prizes for invention. Government can prime the pump, and it should. Do I believe there is an alternative source, or a combination thereof, that will maintain our lifestyle?? You betcha. I don't plan on going back to the stone age. Do you?

Look. I don't know IF there IS a way out of our energy problem, but if we go down, we should go down swinging. But, to say, that we're not going to invest in alternative energy sources, because you hate Al Gore too much, is kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face...

excon

cdad
Nov 29, 2010, 07:21 PM
Hello again, Steve:

Nahh. I'm a capitalist after all. Hefty tax incentives for innovation. Prizes for invention. Government can prime the pump, and it should. Do I believe there is an alternative source, or a combination thereof, that will maintain our lifestyle??? You betcha. I don't plan on going back to the stone age. Do you?

Look. I dunno IF there IS a way out of our energy problem, but if we go down, we should go down swinging. But, to say, that we're not going to invest in alternative energy sources, because you hate Al Gore too much, is kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face...

excon

Who is the one dictating the alternative energies? Common sense or those that are enviromentalists?

So far the latter has managed to do enough damage to our system then any other and they do wish to return to the stone age.

excon
Nov 29, 2010, 07:34 PM
Who is the one dictating the alternative energies? Common sense or those that are enviromentalists?Hello again, dad:

Neither. BOTH are contaminated with wrongheadedness. The wackos on the right who absolutely WON'T get on the green train because they hate Al Gore too much, and the environmental wackos the left. But, I agree with your premise. Politics on BOTH sides is getting in the way...

My solution? Turn it over to business, and let them innovate and invent.

excon

PS> Hopefully, my calling a new energy source "the green train" doesn't cause your Al Gore knee to jerk. It could hurt you.

cdad
Nov 29, 2010, 07:38 PM
Hello again, dad:

Neither. BOTH are contaminated with wrongheadedness. The wackos on the right who absolutely WON'T get on the green train because they hate Al Gore too much, and the environmental wackos the left. But, I agree with your premise. Politics on BOTH sides is getting in the way...

My solution?? Turn it over to business, and let them innovate and invent.

excon

PS> Hopefully, my calling a new energy source "the green train" doesn't cause your Al Gore knee to jerk. It could hurt you.

Until such time as we can perfect fusion there is no green train. Its only a caboos trying to push a dead engine.

excon
Nov 29, 2010, 07:55 PM
Until such time as we can perfect fusion there is no green train. Its only a caboos trying to push a dead engine.Hello again, dad:

Wow. I didn't know you righty's had so little faith in American ingenuity.

excon

tomder55
Nov 30, 2010, 05:40 AM
What is missing in this discussion is that the Goracle did promote an alternate fuel that in reality had zero chance of replacing carbon based energy sources. He claimed to support reducing the carbon footprint and chicken-littled about the consequences if we didn't climb aboard his bus.
He now reveals that his primary motivation was not to find an alternative to carbon based fuels ,but instead his own electoral prospects .

This in fact is illustrative of what will happen if we continue to allow politicians to make our energy choices for us. They will always go for parochrial and personal interests over the greater good... especially when someone else's money will pay for it.

Is there an alternative to oil ,gas ,coal ? Maybe... I favor using existing technologies .But,as 'dad' has already pointed out more than once, the public is way too risk adverse in all things related to energy.

American ingenuity... hmm. Why did Thomas Edison invent the incandescent bulb ? It was not because some planner ordered him to . He did what free men do, invent stuff.

It was only after he proved it a commercially viable alternative to things like gas lights ,which had replaced whale oil lanterns, that the governments of the country step up to the plate and invest in the infrastructure.
The government should not be wasting our money on a gamble and a pipe dream.

speechlesstx
Nov 30, 2010, 10:34 AM
But, to say, that we're not going to invest in alternative energy sources, because you hate Al Gore too much, is kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face...

It might be, IF I had ever said that. You're still working on assumptions.

paraclete
Nov 30, 2010, 02:43 PM
Hi Tom we all know that there is a viable alternative to carbon based technologies, it is somewhat more expensive but we have a little political problem, if we adopt it then we have to share the technology with everyone and there goes the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and those pesky Iranians and NK have a free hand. Difficult decision and one that I don't think americian ingenuity is up to. We also have the problem that it won't be long before we face the same shortages we are looking down the barrel of now. Personally doesn't affect me, my nation has vast reserves and we like digging holes in the ground

cdad
Nov 30, 2010, 04:16 PM
Hello again, dad:

Wow. I didn't know you righty's had so little faith in American ingenuity.

excon

Interesting that you side with the eco freaks here. Lets take a look at ingenuity for a minute. We run electric trains that are driven by diesel motors. They are efficient. We have ways already to exceed 100 mpg in common cars but yet our government stands in the way because its different. Lets use the example just posted in the message before. Edison. Would you hold him up as an icon of ingenuity ? Or was he a business man who ran rough shot over his own people to gleen as much profit as possible?

paraclete
Nov 30, 2010, 05:35 PM
Lets take a look at ingenuity for a minute. We run electric trains that are driven by diesel motors.

This you call ingenuity? The oil fueled internal combustion engine in any form is still an oil fueled internal combustion engine. Whose technology is the diesel engine? Replacing the carbon cycle with the hydrogen cycle is ingenuity. Generating electricity by chemical reaction as in a fuel cell is ingenuity. Discovering your economy can actually exist without slavery is ingenuity

What we all need is different thinking, not more of the same

speechlesstx
Dec 1, 2010, 09:07 AM
Discovering your economy can actually exist without slavery is ingenuity

Chicken of the Sea closed its cannery in American Samoa last year because the federal government mandated a $7.25 an hour minimum wage. Over 2000 workers lost their jobs. However, 200 new jobs were created in Georgia when they moved their operations. Starkist announced 800 layoffs this year for the same reason. That kind of ingenuity?


What we all need is different thinking, not more of the same


In lieu of a "bolder approach," a couple of Democrats have offered this kind of different thinking, "a new strategy of gradualism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-wirth/building-blocks-toward-gl_b_789909.html)" (please note the sarcasm font has been engaged).

paraclete
Dec 1, 2010, 02:05 PM
Chicken of the Sea closed its cannery in American Samoa last year because the federal government mandated a $7.25 an hour minimum wage. .

$7.25 an hour? those guys were really living in luxury What you are saying is your industries can't exist without slave labour. Where I come from we pay our juniors more

speechlesstx
Dec 1, 2010, 02:52 PM
$7.25 an hour? those guys were really living in luxury What you are saying is your industries can't exist without slave labour. Where I come from we pay our juniors more

Since the increase our "juniors" have gone from an unemployment rate of 15 percent to 25 percent, and over 50 percent for black teens. Like all those unemployed Samoans they can probably buy more things being employed than unemployed.

speechlesstx
Dec 1, 2010, 03:36 PM
By the way, here's some more of that ingenuity, rationing the rich countries, or as they put it, "planned austerity (http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html)."


In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html)
Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.

Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.

“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

By the looks of things the bureaucrats are getting by OK now.

q83CQ_7CGCg

paraclete
Dec 1, 2010, 06:59 PM
Since the increase our "juniors" have gone from an unemployment rate of 15 percent to 25 percent, and over 50 percent for black teens. Like all those unemployed Samoans they can probably buy more things being employed than unemployed.

You just don't get it, the way to have a buoyant economy is to pay the kids more, they spend it quickly on consumer goods and the money goes around, so you employ two kids for every adult position and soon there will be less kid unemployment. I don't take much notice of such stories as the samoans, america is noted for exporting its unemployment

speechlesstx
Dec 2, 2010, 06:10 AM
You just don't get it, the way to have a bouyant economy is to pay the kids more, they spend it quickly on consumer goods and the money goes around, so you employ two kids for every adult position and soon there will be less kid unemployment. I don't take much notice of such stories as the samoans, america is noted for exporting its unemployment

I don't get it? Have you ever worked with an American teenager? I can't someone more than what they produce or I go out of business.

NeedKarma
Dec 2, 2010, 06:27 AM
What's wrong with american teenager workers?

tomder55
Dec 2, 2010, 06:33 AM
nothing... but if you pay them double what the job is worth then there are less job opportunities for them . Businesses do calculate into the equation the cost of labor.

NeedKarma
Dec 2, 2010, 06:39 AM
Sorry, I was asking speech.

paraclete
Dec 2, 2010, 02:45 PM
I don't get it? Have you ever worked with an American teenager? I can't someone more than what they produce or I go out of business.

Are you saying they are worth what you pay them? Or that they aren't even worth what you pay them?

speechlesstx
Dec 2, 2010, 03:51 PM
are you saying they are worth what you pay them? or that they arn't even worth what you pay them?

What I'm saying is wages are connected to productivity. If I can pay an experienced guy $12.00 an hour who is more productive than two 16 year olds at $7.25 an hour, which would I choose?

If the wages in Thailand are 10 times less than what I'm mandated to pay, how am I going to compete and keep the same workforce? I'm going to be forced to move production where I can compete or automate... or go out of business.

Now, here's the question, if minimum wages are the answer to poverty, Haiti or Zimbabwe should be able to mandate a living wage and all will be well, right?

paraclete
Dec 2, 2010, 08:54 PM
Now, here's the question, if minimum wages are the answer to poverty, Haiti or Zimbabwe should be able to mandate a living wage and all will be well, right?

Let's not go from the sublime to the ridiculous, you know I am speaking of developed economies. Minimum wages are an answer to poverty in a developed country and we know industries will move off shore in search of low labour cost anyway, but if that were the only part of the equation then Haiti and Zimbabwe would be prosperous. The reality is a developed economy shouldn't be making labour intensive goods, it should concentrate on industries requiring a high level of skill in line with the education of its population.

tomder55
Dec 3, 2010, 03:23 AM
Minimul wages distort the job market and lead to the employment abuses we have in this country regarding illegal immigration, and employers looking to exploit illegal workers.

speechlesstx
Dec 3, 2010, 05:46 AM
No difference Clete, Democrats see the minimum wage as an anti-poverty tool. Chicken of the Sea moving to an automated facility in Georgia resulted in a gain of 200 jobs there, and a loss of 2000 jobs in Samoa. How'd that work out as an anti-poverty tool?

NeedKarma
Dec 3, 2010, 05:56 AM
How do republicans see the minimum wage?

paraclete
Dec 3, 2010, 04:30 PM
No difference Clete, Democrats see the minimum wage as an anti-poverty tool. Chicken of the Sea moving to an automated facility in Georgia resulted in a gain of 200 jobs there, and a loss of 2000 jobs in Samoa. How'd that work out as an anti-poverty tool?

Now doubt it did something for the poverty in Georgia, but the reality is that such a move would have had years of planning and had nothing to do with a minimum wage, so using it as an argument against minimum wages is spirious. American companies routinely move the base of operations as a tactic against unionisation and labour costs

speechlesstx
Dec 4, 2010, 06:41 AM
Clete, the increase was passed in 2007. Until then, Samoa was exempted. They've had 3 years to make this move, it wasn't planned, it was forced.

paraclete
Dec 6, 2010, 01:46 PM
Clete, the increase was passed in 2007. Until then, Samoa was exempted. They've had 3 years to make this move, it wasn't planned, it was forced.

You say they closed in Samoa because of minimum wages then you say Samoa was exempted. Poor argument here, they closed because they planned to close, could be other factors like availability of fish, although how many fish are there in Georgia?

They sold the cannery to a former partner so we will put this one down to a lot of political manoevering

speechlesstx
Dec 6, 2010, 04:25 PM
You say they closed in Samoa because of minimum wages then you say Samoa was exempted. Poor argument here, they closed because they planned to close, could be other factors like availability of fish, although how many fish are there in Georgia?

they sold the cannery to a former partner so we will put this one down to a lot of political manoevering

Reread the post Clete, Samoa was exempted UNTIL 2007 when Democrats insisted the minimum wage apply to Samoa. Chicken of the Sea announced they were building a new plant in Georgia and closing the Samoan plant in May, 2009.

TriMarine did just acquire the COS plant, but do you think they're going to hire 2,000 people? I don't think so. You can argue this was political maneuvering all you want, the result is exactly what I stated - people are out of work because of the minimum wage.

paraclete
Dec 6, 2010, 04:36 PM
Reread the post Clete, Samoa was exempted UNTIL 2007 when Democrats insisted the minimum wage apply to Samoa. Chicken of the Sea announced they were building a new plant in Georgia and closing the Samoan plant in May, 2009.

TriMarine did just acquire the COS plant, but do you think they're going to hire 2,000 people? I don't think so. You can argue this was political maneuvering all you want, the result is exactly what I stated - people are out of work because of the minimum wage.

Obama recently exempted Samoa from the wage increase so Chicken of the Sea jumped because it suited them, including some incentives from Georgia so it is all just business. Look, it's sad that an economy like Samoa has to take a set back but they had interests in raising the standards of their people. There are disadvantages to being under american administration. These things have impacts, but if Trimarine sees it as an opportunity it can't all be bad. Realise that those 2000 workers were replaced by a more efficient plant, it happens everyday somewhere, and Trimarine will have the opportunity to restructure, it's business. Not fair, but business

speechlesstx
Dec 6, 2010, 05:02 PM
Obama recently exempted Samoa from the wage increase so Chicken of the Sea jumped because it suited them,

Edit: Yes sir, I knew this. If the minimum wage was such a wonderful anti-poverty tool, why did the White House cave?


"We said this increase would be harmful in 2007, and the Democrats did it anyway (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/18/territories-snared-in-wage-debate/)," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican. "It proves our point that the federal government setting wage rates is destructive to job creation, whether it's in American Samoa or western North Carolina."

Keep spinning it however you want, my point remains solid as a rock.

paraclete
Dec 6, 2010, 05:58 PM
Edit: Yes sir, I knew this. If the minimum wage was such a wonderful anti-poverty tool, why did the White House cave?

Keep spinning it however you want, my point remains solid as a rock.

Your thesis exists on a false premise. One of the strongest economies in the world exists within the strong control of pay rates through government enforced administration and minimum pay standards. Was there pain in putting it into place? Yes, are there things we don't manufacture anymore? Yes, is unemployment endemic, NO! Contrast this with your own circumstance.

Your problems exist because of porous borders and a slave owing exploitative mentality, not minimum pay standards

speechlesstx
Dec 6, 2010, 06:31 PM
Your problems exist because of porous borders and a slave owing exploititive mentality, not minimum pay standards

Yes, those porous borders of Samoa are a pressing issue. Don't you have your own problems (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41034.html) to deal with?

paraclete
Dec 6, 2010, 08:26 PM
Yes, those porous borders of Samoa are a pressing issue. Don't you have your own problems (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41034.html) to deal with?

Yes we have some porous borders in the region of Christmas Island too, but those illegals don't cause employment problems, as to problems, what problems?

The only problems we have with indigenous Australians is how to integrate them into the workforce, most of our unemployment is the long term unemployment associated with people who have opted out. Our society just doesn't have employment for those who's skills are more attuned to the stone age and hunter-gathering. The bleeding hearts overseas don't like to hear of kangaroo and camel culls, which these people could do effectively and it comes with a minimum wage. Doging also pays well. They have free places available in university but how to get them to reach the educational level where they can avail themselves of it is beyond our advanced technology. Fact is my boomerang won't come back! And it is a big problem

SO I tell you what, you solve my problems and I'll solve yours. No Plucking Worries Mate!

tomder55
Dec 8, 2010, 06:00 AM
Got to love it... it's like that cloud that follows Eyore . Everywhere they attempt to hold one of these climate pow-wows the weather follows them around throwing monkey feces at their logic and rationale.

Gore Effect Strikes Cancun Roy Spencer, Ph. D. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/gore-effect-strikes-cancun/)

The old previous record low was bested by 4 degrees F .
Here are existing Record Lows and Forecast Lows in upcoming days:

Today: 53 °F (2003)
Forecast: 51°F

Thursday: 60 °F (2000)
Forecast: 59°F

Friday: 60 °F (1999)
Forecast: 55°F

Saturday: 57 °F (2003)
Forecast: 53°F

Sunday: 55 °F (2008)
Forecast: 51°F

Double down on that Tequila! Got to keep warm!

excon
Dec 8, 2010, 06:12 AM
Everywhere they attempt to hold one of these climate pow-wows the weather follows them around throwing monkey feces at their logic and rationale. Hello tom:

If I didn't understand science, I'd look around and say they're throwing monkey crap at the logic and rational of the people who say the earth is round.. After all, you can plainly SEE that it's perfectly flat.

excon

excon
Dec 8, 2010, 06:44 AM
Hello again, tom:

Yes, I have more to say...

I understand you object to the idea of man made global warming. I don't know if that belief is inspired by your religious views or your political views. I suppose I could include in that list your views on education, but I can't believe that anybody, in this day and age, totally rejects the field of science. Yet, the essence of your posts appear to do just that...

I wonder what the objective of your position is. I think it boils down to protecting the oil companies AND the way of life they provide... I think you perceive that global warming advocates attack your way of life, and if they prevail, your way of life will DECLINE.

If we weren't running out of oil, I'd agree with you... But, that fact alone means your way of life WILL automatically decline if we don't find a replacement for oil. The left wing isn't responsible for this fact. Al Gore didn't invent that fact. It's just so.

If your objective in this debate is to prevent government from investing into the exploration of THAT replacement, you're hastening the very decline you purport to want to preserve...

If your objective in this debate is to confirm your religious views, then no argument I could make would convince you... If your objective is to indict science, or how science is taught, I don't know how to counter that.. Or maybe you only reject THIS part of science... I don't know. I only know you object.

Please forgive me for putting words into your mouth if I did. But, I really don't know what you have to say about it, except that you object. Help me out here.

excon

tomder55
Dec 8, 2010, 07:00 AM
Did it ever occure to you that the basis of my objection is that the science itself is flawed and corrupted... that in fact it is this consensus thinking by the leading climatologists that more resembles a religious view than my scepticism ?
That the most probable reason for this consensus thinking is because the scientist are supporting the views of those who butter their bread ?

excon
Dec 8, 2010, 07:40 AM
Did it ever occure to you that the basis of my objection is that the science itself is flawed and corrupted ..

That the most probable reason for this consensus thinking is because the scientist are supporting the views of those who butter their bread ?Hello again, tom:

It DID occur to me tom. That's why I included an indictment of science itself in the list... You confirmed it...

We disagree. Oh, I don't disagree that SOME scientists misrepresent science in order to pad their own pockets... The lying SOB scientists who worked for the tobacco companies come to mind.

And, I don't disagree that science makes mistakes...

But, to say that a world wide CONSENSUS of scientists willingly CORRUPT their science because of their benefactors, strains the bounds of credulity. It's an indictment of the entire FIELD of science... I just don't believe that a WORLD WIDE CONSENSUS of scientists are going to prostitute their life's work. I just don't believe it. You DO understand, that science is ABOUT the pursuit of truth. THAT is their product. It's the ONLY thing they make. Otherwise, they're just PR hacks.

Which brings me to my other question... WHERE did you learn to distrust science? My bet it was in church. Certainly, they don't teach that in school... Besides, if you DON'T trust a CONSENSUS on science, on what do you rely when you take a pill or fly in an airplane?

excon

tomder55
Dec 8, 2010, 07:50 AM
Scepticism is the very foundation of science. I learned that in science classes I've taken through college. My church does not teach a divide between science and religion. It occures to me that often it is the opposite... that it is certain scientists that are intolerant to religion. Oh yes I agree it is reciprocal with some religions ,but not mine.

But back to climate science. You may not have noticed;but the link I posted is from a former NASA PHD climatologist who is also a skeptic of AGW. Certainly you are not saying his observations are clouded in anti-science prejudices ?

excon
Dec 8, 2010, 08:01 AM
the link I posted is from a former NASA PHD climatologist who is also a skeptic of AGW. Certainly you are not saying his observations are clouded in anti-science prejudices ?Hello again, tom:

Please... I bring a WORLD WIDE CONSENSUS. You bring ONE guy.

excon

tomder55
Dec 8, 2010, 08:05 AM
It would be too time consuming to list the scientists who are skeptics... Suffice it to say that momentum is moving in their favor . The legitimate science just doesn't support the consensus ;and the consensus scientists ,led by the Goracle ,have failed at their Torquemada-like purges and demonization of anyone opposed to them .

excon
Dec 8, 2010, 08:08 AM
led by the Goracle ,have failed at their Torquemada-like purges and demonization of anyone opposed to them .Hello again, tom:

I'm just asking questions here...

excon

tomder55
Dec 8, 2010, 08:16 AM
I didn't say you .I said "consensus scientists" (which could be the oxymoron of the year)

cdad
Dec 8, 2010, 02:09 PM
I wonder if they even read any of this stuff??


Earth may be entering a new Ice Age (http://iceagenow.com/Earth_may_be_entering_a_new_Ice_Age.htm)

Science: Another Ice Age? - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html)

"Mini Ice Age" May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html)

Real scientists' real fear: the coming ice age (http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59588_621.htm)

speechlesstx
Dec 8, 2010, 03:31 PM
Here you go, Ex, All you need to know about Mann-made global warming in one poster (http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_banner.pdf).

paraclete
Dec 8, 2010, 03:49 PM
SO Ex you idea is that the majority is always right? I expect you are somewhat miffed that the majority has spoken in favour of not supporting your political views.

You have tangled up your myths and you are in favour of economic collapse just so we can solve some mythical problems, Peak oil, if it exists, will be with us soon enough and solutions will emerge even if that includes the use of existing technology such as the bicycle and eating what is produced locally. Climate changes, did the Romans worry about why it was hotter, no they got on with conquering the world, so did Ghengis Khan, but we have developed the chicken little ideas of the Chinese and want to build barriers to our problems, to overcome the invading CO2. Our economies should not be turned over to solving problems we cannot surmount but dealing with real issues.

excon
Dec 8, 2010, 05:08 PM
You have tangled up your myths and you are in favour of economic collapse just so we can solve some mythical problems, Peak oil, if it exists,Hello again, clete:

Well, ONE of us is tangled up. We're running out of oil You're not sure. I want to do something to AVOID the surprise you seem willing to endure... If you want to see a collapse, do NOTHING.

excon

paraclete
Dec 8, 2010, 05:52 PM
Ah ex, you rithe from one myth to another. We are running out of oil, not because it doesn't exist in abundance, but because we restrict our access to it to placate those same people who would have us decimate our economies trying to prevent something which even if we stopped burning fossil fuels right now, would, they tell us, continue for a hundred years.

We have listened to the myths and every time they revise their opinion, please note I said opinion, the calamity they predicted previously has somehow been miraculously averted, not because of timely action, but because of inaccurate data and modelling which rendered their hypothesis as myth.

True science relies on proven data and reliable testing of hypothesis, but what we have here is the pseudo science of the environmental lobby. Now the data in my possession tells me that what we are trying to overcome is short term natural trend. Has the link between temperate rise and CO2 been conclusively proven by correlation. Ie; more CO2, more temperature. No! It hasn't excepting in a laboratory. The reason is that there are in nature as there are in life, mitigating factors that cannot be predicted.

I have more concern regarding the effect of supervolcanoes and plate tectonics than I have on the effect of CO2 induced climate change. I have seen the predictions for North America, why waste your time trying to control the weather?

cdad
Dec 8, 2010, 06:07 PM
Has the link between temperate rise and CO2 been conclusively proven by correlation. ie; more CO2, more temperature. No! it hasn't excepting in a laboratory. The reason is that there are in nature as there are in life, mitigating factors that cannot be predicted.

Actually yes it has been proven. And it was part of the model that the scientists used. But in this case it was a runaway situation. The so called greenhouse effect is attributed to not this planet but to Venus. And that along with the data and theory from a scientist in the late 50's is where all this began. But at that time it was put out there to avoid an ice age (go figure). It was proposed that to increase the levels of CO2 gases could prevent us from having one. I remember from my childhood being told of a coming iceage.

So what I want to know is when is Goldielocks going to come along and tell us things are just right?

paraclete
Dec 8, 2010, 06:16 PM
So what I want to know is when is Goldielocks going to come along and tell us things are just right?

Now Cal you know that is in noone's interest to do that. Without a crisis it isn't possible to get anything done.

It is quite possible that we will have another iceage when the great conveyor shuts down because of Global Warming. Oh wait! Report just in, that's not going to happen. Shucks! Another crisis averted.

Do you know why we haven't got this thing licked? We haven't declared a war on climate change. We must employ the ultimate solution immediately. Ridiculous isn't it? But in fact that is the proposal before us.

excon
Dec 9, 2010, 12:09 AM
Has the link between temperate rise and CO2 been conclusively proven by correlation. ie; more CO2, more temperature. No! it hasn't excepting in a laboratory. Hello again, clete:

Psssst... The lab is where scientists PROVE their theories, and apparently, they DID.

excon

paraclete
Dec 9, 2010, 01:21 AM
Hello again, clete:

Psssst... The lab is where scientists PROVE their theories, and apparently, they DID.

excon

Ex I hate to break this to you, but there is no substitute for the real world and where the weather is concerned it helps to look out of the window or in the case of theories, see if they work outside the LAB!

I remember some great theories concerning weather, like cloud seeding or the southern occillation index

excon
Dec 9, 2010, 06:47 AM
Hello again, clete:

Let me ask you the same question I asked tom. Where did you learn to distrust science? I'll bet it was in church...

excon

cdad
Dec 9, 2010, 01:58 PM
Hello again, clete:

Let me ask you the same question I asked tom. Where did you learn to distrust science? I'll bet it was in church...

excon

I would like to take a stab at answering this question that you posed.

I learned to distrust science when it went from being science to politics. There is no place for that in science. Science is normally based on fact or solid theory. Politics is based on niether. That was the tipping point for me.

paraclete
Dec 9, 2010, 02:10 PM
Hello again, clete:

Let me ask you the same question I asked tom. Where did you learn to distrust science? I'll bet it was in church...

excon

No Ex don't let your liberal bias show. I learned to distrust science when I learned that I was being lied to. As the University Professor said on the first day. "forget everything you have have been taught, it is either wrong or out of date. We had to teach you something so we taught you that"

So EX why should I believe this stack of bull we have been shovelled in the name of climate science, so much of it has turned out to be exactly the same!

excon
Dec 9, 2010, 02:31 PM
I learned to distrust science when it went from being science to politics. Hello again, dad:

I DID address those individual scumbag scientist who willingly prostitute themselves for 30 pieces of silver. But, you're indicting the ENTIRE field of science. Personally, I don't believe a world wide consensus of scientists is lying...

excon

paraclete
Dec 9, 2010, 04:22 PM
Hello again, dad:

I DID address those individual scumbag scientist who willingly prostitute themselves for 30 pieces of silver. But, you're indicting the ENTIRE field of science. Personally, I don't believe a world wide consensus of scientists is lying...

excon

Hi Ex where did you learn about the 30 pieces of silver? I bet you learned it in a Church...

You really do need to get to be more specific and tell us which scientists you think are lying and which are not. You say there is consensus world wide but that is picking and choosing which opinions, Yes, scientists have opinions, you choose to believe. When there is wide spread conflicting opinion it is reasonable to question what is proven and what is not. So far very little is proven, there is much erronious data, and even more erronious opinion and that is setting aside the deliberate distortions.

excon
Dec 9, 2010, 08:02 PM
So far very little is proven, there is much erronious data, and even more erronious opinion and that is setting aside the deliberate distortions.Hello again, clete:

Yeah, those bastard scientists... Take a look around. I know somebody hired them to fool us about the roundness of the globe... It's plainly flat, as you can see.

It's hard to explain science to science deniers.

excon

paraclete
Dec 9, 2010, 10:10 PM
Hello again, clete:

Yeah, those bastard scientists... Take a look around. I know somebody hired them to fool us about the roundness of the globe... It's plainly flat, as you can see.

It's hard to explain science to science deniers.

excon

Well Ex, the Earth is not flat here but I'm not so sure about the shape where you live. You see being on the other side of the Earth provides a different perspective, here the skys are clear and not full of that stuff you keep telling us everyone is dumping in the atmosphere. What I don't like is being told I have to respond to what is a Northern Hemisphere problem, which I note your own nation is doing as little as possible about. We are accused of having a large carbon footprint but on an output per square mile basis it is actually small. Not only that but my nation has actually met it's Kyoto obligations.

So when it comes to science deniers, whatever they might be, I think you will find them in your own balliwick

tomder55
Dec 10, 2010, 05:16 AM
There is pressure put on the scientific community to tow the line . That is undeniable .Recently departed Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology [and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years"],upon her retirement ,expressed relief that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. She refutiated the idea that conclusions can be made by modelling . This is a quote from her statement to the US Senate .

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system”.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

excon
Dec 10, 2010, 05:48 AM
There is pressure put on the scientific community to tow the line . That is undeniable .Hello again, tom:

These days, I don't know WHO would be putting pressure on their community besides their benefactors. IF that's so, not only is it an indictment of science, it's an indictment of business too. Admittedly, my viewpoint of science comes from a time when pure science was practiced. That happened mostly in our university's. While they were funded by business interests, they were NOT beholden to them.

The benefactors of old wanted scientists to do science... If the benefactors of today want scientists to become PR hacks, and PRETEND to do science, so that they come up with predetermined conclusions, that's, pure and simple, an indictment of the business community AND the field of science...

I may be wearing rose colored glasses, but as I've said before, I refuse to believe that scientists willingly PROSTITUTE themselves, even IF there is pressure to do so... It's an anathema to their life's pursuit... Certainly some will, of course.. But, it's like becoming a cop simply because it's easier to steal. MOST cops don't do that... As much as I hate 'em, I do NOT believe ALL cops are corrupt, IN SPITE of the pressure to do so...

You, on the other hand, and willing to indict an entire field... You wouldn't believe me if I indicted ALL the cops... I don't believe you when you indict ALL the scientists...

excon

tomder55
Dec 10, 2010, 06:12 AM
I don't indict all scientists . The true scientists are beginning to show their mettle and confront conscensus orthodoxy . Perhaps you can brush off the opinion of someone as distinguished as the late Joanne Simpson ,but I can't . No one can claim that she was ever bought. I can't say the same for the leading climatologists who advanced the hypothesis of man made AGW . Their emails to each other were released and it proved what many have suspected .

excon
Dec 10, 2010, 06:30 AM
Perhaps you can brush off the opinion of someone as distinguished as the late Joanne Simpson ,but I can't . Hello again, tom:

Now, we're getting down to it... Nobody brushes off distinguished scientists. Certainly not me. But when a CONSENSUS of the worlds scientists say otherwise, from a scientific point of view, the CONSENSUS has it.

There are some distinguished scientists who say that vaccinations cause autism. Lots of people BELIEVE it, too. But, the world wide consensus of scientists, say it's bunk. Now, you can choose to believe the few, or you can choose to believe the many. I choose the many.

excon

paraclete
Dec 10, 2010, 02:15 PM
There is pressure put on the scientific community to tow the line . That is undeniable .Recently departed Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology [and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years"],upon her retirement ,expressed relief that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. She refutiated the idea that conclusions can be made by modelling . This is a quote from her statement to the US Senate .

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

Thank you Tom I know Ex doesn't get it because he has swallowed the pseudo science hook line and sinker. Someone modelled it on a computer so it must be right. I would also like him to consider that someone also modelled a near miss for Earth by Apophis in 2036 unless, according to the model, it passes through a window half a mile wide. Give me a break please. Ex, please deny Apophis is a problem because I think it is a greater problem than climate change.

excon
Dec 10, 2010, 03:54 PM
Someone modelled it on a computer so it must be right.Hello again, clete:

Someone?? SOMEONE?? Dude! A WORLD WIDE CONSENSUS of scientists is just a tad more than someone... Dude!

Exocn

paraclete
Dec 10, 2010, 04:29 PM
Hello again, clete:

Someone??? SOMEONE????? Dude!! A WORLD WIDE CONSENSUS of scientists is just a tad more than someone.... Dude!

exocn

Give me a break, Ex, a world wide consensus of scientists didn't model climate on their computers, like all scientific endeavour some scientists modelled specific aspects of climate and presented their findings to their peers, some of whom agreed with the hypothesis, and some who had other data didn't. The more we look at this question and the modelling, the more flaws we find in the hyopthesis. It is a hypothesis, EX! a HYPOTHESIS, an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS! Please tell me you don't believe that a model that could produce a prediction of a zone of falling temperature in Antartica right beside a zone of rising temperature could be considered accurate?


Recently the hypothesis was that the cold water from melting glaciers/ice in the Artic would cause the great conveyor to shut down, recently we are told that modelling now shows this isn't so. It is computer generated BS, EX! Not facts, Hypothesis! Theory! We go from predicting an ice age to predicting world wide flooding and the best yet is that global warming will produce an ice age. We think the water will rise metres this century and then we find we are talking in inches. The sooner we take these scientists and remove their tenue and their funding the better

What do we know for sure?
Glaciers are melting
The Earth continues to warm as it has done since the end of the ice age
The Earth has long term cycles of warming and cooling.
Climate doesn't have a norm, it is variable

excon
Dec 10, 2010, 04:59 PM
Give me a break, Ex, a world wide consensus of scientists didn't model climate on their computers, Hello again, clete:

Give YOU a break... Dude! Look.. I don't know HOW a world wide consensus of scientists came up with their conclusions... I don't CARE - just like I don't care HOW they determined that getting vaccinated will prevent disease... All I care about is that a CONSENSUS of scientists tell me that something is fine, and that's cool with me.

You don't trust them... I don't know why. But you trust them enough to take a pill... Science grounds me... It must be a real scary world if you can't trust science. How do you know the bridge you're about to cross will hold you?? But, I got it. You DON'T trust science... Cool.

It's like I said earlier, it's hard to explain science to science deniers...

excon

paraclete
Dec 10, 2010, 05:10 PM
Hello again, clete:

Give YOU a break... Dude! Look.. I dunno HOW a world wide consensus of scientists came up with their conclusions... I don't CARE - just like I don't care HOW they determined that getting vaccinated will prevent disease... All I care about is that a CONSENSUS of scientists tell me that something is fine, and that's cool with me.

You don't trust them... I dunno why. But you trust them enough to take a pill... Science grounds me... It must be a real scary world if you can't trust science. How do you know the bridge you're about to cross will hold you??? But, I got it. You DON'T trust science... Cool.

It's like I said earlier, it's hard to explain science to science deniers...

excon

You miss the point Ex you cannot put medical science and drug therepy, which goes through a rigorous proving process that takes years, and a publish and be damned attitude surrounding climate science which requires nothing be proven in the same pot and call them both science. The only thing they have in common is that the person doing the research has a degree, which is a certificate that they did some study somewhere. I've got one too! In fact I have several pieces of paper attesting to something.

What I don't trust is the process and the rigor with which these predictions were derived, particularly since there is evidence of tampering with data, vested interest, lack of critical thinking, and taking a very short term view of a subject which requires a long term perspective. Do some research yourself EX and look at what some very emenient people are saying on this subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/12/10/10climatewire-new-theory-of-climate-effects-of-clouds-trig-50353.html
Here is a recent speaker at Cancun EX he says he has no idea whether the models he is using are right or wrong. And you call this science

excon
Dec 10, 2010, 05:32 PM
Do some research yourself EX Hello again, clete:

Then we're back to square one. I'm a layman. I don't DO research. I look around the world and come up with conclusions. I conclude that when you throw garbage into the air, you pollute. I've observed pollution before. I know where it comes from. Pollution has consequences... You don't believe that. You won't be convinced of that. Fine. I am. That's because I'm NOT a science denier... My layman's observations and a world wide consensus of scientists coincide with each other.

Because you don't trust THIS field of science, you belittle the scientists who do it. I guess because you don't want to believe them. Makes no sense to me... But, I'm NOT a science denier. You can't explain science to one of them. They TRUST certain scientist, but not others... I don't know what to say about that. It's like there is no answer that will satisfy a birther... There's no answer that will satisfy a science denier...

excon

paraclete
Dec 10, 2010, 05:48 PM
Ex
Did you bother to read the article I provided? If you had you would have seen there was a debate between two researchers in the same field, one refuting the others methodology and this is typical of the whole issue of global warming and climate change.

You keep talking about throwing garbage in the air, if you think CO2 is garbage you had better cut down all the trees because they put CO2 in the air some of the time, you had better kill all the humans because they breathe out CO2. Do we need to change the carbon cycle we have hitched ourselves too for other reasons? No debate there, we should and we will, But, and it is a big BUT, we need to make the change with considered forethought or we may find we have a bigger problem than we started with. Current technologies aren't the answer, they rely too heavily on rare earths which have high pollution in refining and are in inadequate supply to solve the problem anyway.
This is where the profit incentive will not make the correct decisions for us. Just look at the mess converting corn to ethanol has caused
Like you, I know how to identify problems, but finding solutions that requires more than science

excon
Dec 10, 2010, 05:57 PM
Ex, did you bother to read the article I provided? If you had you would have seen there was a debate between two researchers in the same field, one refuting the others methodologyHello again, clete:

Two scientists arguing does NOTHING to effect a world wide CONSENSUS of scientists. A CONSENSUS means most. You can choose to believe SOME scientists, or you can choose to believe MOST scientists... You pick SOME. I pick MOST.

excon

paraclete
Dec 10, 2010, 06:10 PM
Hello again, clete:

Two scientists arguing does NOTHING to effect a world wide CONSENSUS of scientists. A CONSENSUS means most. You can choose to believe SOME scientists, or you can choose to believe MOST scientists... You pick SOME. I pick MOST.

Excon

How did you arrive at the idea that most scientists believe in CO2 induced climate change? Because someone told you so? I'm not aware anyone took a poll which demonstrated that, quite the contrary
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere".. Most scientists are not involved in the fields which enable them to have an informed opinion. They are like you, they know only what they read and what someone has told them and if, like you, they derived their information from the media or Al Gore, they are ill informed. I was similarly ill informed once, however, I did some research and I found a body of opinion that was contrary to the consensus, if there is such a thing, and that body of opinion is growing and well reasoned and contains many enemient scientists in the fields of Earth sciences.

By the way Ex a consensus is reached when there is no further argument, we have not reached that phase yet.

tomder55
Dec 10, 2010, 07:22 PM
Considering the consensus opinion is based on demonstrably fraudulent and manipulated data ,I would think at very least real scientists would demand new studies and research to gather uncorrupted data to develop a true scientific hypothesis .

paraclete
Dec 11, 2010, 12:03 AM
considering the concensus opinion is based on demonstrably fraudulent and manipulated data ,I would think at very least real scientists would demand new studies and research to gather uncorrupted data to develop a true scientific hypothesis .

You would think so wouldn't you? But no, we have the rubbish we have been fed. What conclusions you can draw from this I don't know but I think vested interests are involved, I also think there are only a small number contributing to these studies so if they are outed there isn't anyone to take their place.

tomder55
Dec 11, 2010, 04:12 AM
I also think there are only a small number contributing to these studies so if they are outed there isn't anyone to take their place.


Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University did a study of Northern Hemisphere Temperatures and drew a graph that looked like a 'hockey stick ' after he conveniently and intentionally eliminated the 'Medeval Warming period' before the 'Little Ice Age' to make it look like temperatures were constant before the Industrial era.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this fraudulent graph evidence of AGW in their 3rd assessment report. It was then that talk of a scientific consensus first started being used.

Phil Jones, Keith Briffa,Tim Osborn ,and Mike Hulme,of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and other 'scientists ' inside the unit had their emails hacked . Those emails revealed the levels of manipulation that regularly occurred within the field. Climate scientists had colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published,and deleted key raw data.Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme also wrote high-profile scientific papers on climate change that were cited by the IPCC .
The emails revealed that they colluded to ensure the IPCC report included their views and excluded others. Britain's Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia has been the primary source of information for the IPCC ,the group along with Al Gore that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for scaring the world into thinking that the planet is warmer than ever due to human activity. The emails revealed that Jones used "Mike's Nature trick"(the eliminating of warming periods to construct the hockey stick graph)in his 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization,"to hide the decline".

Manipulated data was also used in the IPCC report from Australia's Darwin Zero temperature station .The data was radically altered to show temperature increases. When the raw data was released it showed in fact a decline in temperatures from the station .

Finally ,NASA's Goddard Center has also been complicit in this fraud .Goddard employees are cited in the CRU emails also. NASA sensors in the Arctic ,it was claimed ,revealed that the ice sheet is melting... in fact ,they underestimated the size of the sheet by a mass about the size of the State of California. In fact ,the sheet has been growing after a period of shrinkage and has returned to 1979 levels... the year when consistent measurements began .

Let's assume that there wasn't manipulation. The conclusions reached about temperatures have used so few monitoring stations as to make any real conclusions suspect at best . But ,when these monitoring stations are also shown to be either faulty in application ,or data taken from these stations proven to be manipulated to show a preconceived outcome ,I don't see how there is legitimacy in the claims of the consensus scientists.
They can still have their hypothesis I guess even though the data backing it is suspect.

But that isn't the only issue here. They expect public policy to be created and acted on based on what has turned out to be at best suspect data and at worse manipulated data.

paraclete
Dec 11, 2010, 06:13 AM
You are correct Tom and if this has been used to obtain money it is Fraud.

I see you omitted to tell us about the temperature readings taken at suspect sites and the deliberate misstatement of data in the UN reports. Ex can have his consensus as long as he is prepared to pay for it, but there is no consensus just chaos.

It's a case of fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on you. I might have been fooled once but I won't be fooled a second time. This thing is the greatest shell game ever played, no one can find the pea

excon
Dec 11, 2010, 07:04 AM
Hello again,

When you throw trash into the air, it's bad. You don't think so. You're wrong.

excon

paraclete
Dec 11, 2010, 09:19 PM
Hello again,

When you throw trash into the air, it's bad. You don't think so. You're wrong.

excon

You know Ex, you are beginning to sound like a broken record, you remember those?

Cancun has proven to be can'tcun with the result some vague idea to limit deforestation, like Indonesia and Brazil are going to take any notice, and the usual throw someoneelse's money at it and it will fix it.

The delegates didn't want to know about Kyoto and the idea that emissions should be further limited, so Ex, I guess they don't agree that CO2 is trash, how does that fit in your concensus? Ex, my nation has done its bit and met its target, over to you to demonstrate what your nation has done?

tomder55
Dec 12, 2010, 12:38 PM
Here is video of Cancun delegates signing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Guess they want that tequila straight up .

YouTube - UN Climate Kooks: Cripple US economy & ban H2O! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzZ_Zcp4PwY&feature=player_embedded)

TUT317
Dec 12, 2010, 01:53 PM
Here is video of Cancun delegates signing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Guess they want that tequila straight up .

YouTube - UN Climate Kooks: Cripple US economy & ban H2O! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzZ_Zcp4PwY&feature=player_embedded)


Hi Tom,

You are not serious-are you?

A phony petition.

If we can fool people into banning water then we can fool them into the destruction of our economy?

A fallacy of composition here. What is true for a particular group of conservationists must be true of all conservationists.

Regards

Tut

tomder55
Dec 12, 2010, 04:08 PM
No I'm not serious . I just thought that farce was the perfect ending to a farcical conference.

You would think that a delegate for the 'concensus science' would at least know that dihydrogen monoxide is water. Then again ;perhaps they realize that water vapor and not C02 is the biggest green house gas in the atmosphere, and really are considering draconian restrictions .

paraclete
Dec 12, 2010, 05:38 PM
Tom you know the real solution is to stop all human activity, why shouldn't the trogladites of the environmental lobby be on board with this?

It is a wonder Ex and his consensus aren't protesting water vapour at the gates of the power stations, after all it is dumping garbage in the atmosphere. I wonder when he will realise the monocarbon dioxide he breathes out is polluting the atmosphere and do the honorable thing.

TUT317
Dec 12, 2010, 11:37 PM
No I'm not serious . I just thought that farce was the perfect ending to a farcical conference.

You would think that a delegate for the 'concensus science' would at least know that dihydrogen monoxide is water. Then again ;perhaps they realize that water vapor and not C02 is the biggest green house gas in the atmosphere, and really are considering draconian restrictions .

Hi Tom,

Well, no I wouldn't think that because 'consensus science' is made up of scientists. Based on what I saw on U tube these people are laypersons not scientists. You can be an outside observer, and be in agreement with the consensus, but unless you are a scientist you are not part of the consensus. I am sure that any physicist would understand what dihydrogen monoxide is and would not be implementing any recommendations based on the fact that it is in abundance in the atmosphere.

The petition was a political stunt and not surprisingly it got a political response.

Regards

Tut

TUT317
Dec 12, 2010, 11:46 PM
Tom you know the real solution is to stop all human activity, why shouldn't the trogladites of the environmental lobby be on board with this?

It is a wonder Ex and his consensus arn't protesting water vapour at the gates of the power stations, afterall it is dumping garbage in the atmosphere. I wonder when he will realise the monocarbon dioxide he breathes out is polluting the atmosphere and do the honorable thing.

Hi clete,

Ex seems to be in agreement with the consensus but he is not part of the consensus. In my view only scientists can actually be part of the consensus. How many scientists are calling for a stop to all human activity? Tom and yourself are using 'consensus' as some type of blanket ascription.

Regards

Tut

paraclete
Dec 13, 2010, 12:13 AM
Hi clete,

Ex seems to be in agreement with the consensus but he is not part of the consensus. In my view only scientists can actually be part of the consensus. How many scientists are calling for a stop to all human activity? Tom and yourself are using 'consensus' as some type of blanket ascription.

Regards

Tut

You miss the point Tut, Ex thinks there is a consensus, and Tom and I disagee with him, that is, we don't think there is a consensus. Ex is one of those who think the debate is settled. The climate debate is very complex and Ex has over simplified to focus on CO2 as pollution. He has also mixed up the arguments about peak oil and emissions. I am of the view that climate science as it is presented to us is pseudo science. It ignores a great deal of data and focuses on short term trends.

TUT317
Dec 13, 2010, 02:25 AM
You miss the point Tut, Ex thinks there is a consensus, and Tom and I disagee with him, that is, we don't think there is a consensus. Ex is one of those who think the debate is settled.

Hi clete,

In an odd sort of way the debate is settled, but that is the problem with science in the 21 st century.

Pseudo science implies there must be a 'real' science. Unfortunately this is not the case. As it stands at the moment, my contention is that science falls into two categories. Realist and anti-realist camps. Among other things anti- realists would claim that a scientific theory is only valuable if it is able to make accurate predictions. In this respect they would say that climate science fails. I would also say it fails regardless of whether the figures are fudged or not. Anti- realists seem to be the skeptics looking after this area.

The other 'camp' would be called 'the realists'. The would probably argue that it doesn't matter if we have failed to make any accurate predictions. Many things in regard to climate change have not been observed, but they would probably argue that this doesn't make our theories wrong. I see them as a bit like ,'it will rain theorists'. It hasn't rained, but one day it will.

It seems to me we have pet theories and we don't want to give them up. It also seems to be a part of 21 century thinking to hang on to these theories. Scientists seems to be no different; this is the way most people are. I think it explains,' the consensus' point of view every nicely.

It might be better if the skeptical point of view were the consensus, but this is not the case. This is how we think in a global society. So yes, there is a consensus.

Just my opinion

Tut

tomder55
Dec 13, 2010, 05:25 AM
Hi Tom,

Well, no I wouldn't think that because 'consensus science' is made up of scientists. Based on what I saw on U tube these people are laypersons not scientists. You can be an outside observer, and be in agreement with the consensus, but unless you are a scientist you are not part of the consensus. I am sure that any physicist would understand what dihydrogen monoxide is and would not be implementing any recommendations based on the fact that it is in abundance in the atmosphere.

The petition was a political stunt and not surprisingly it got a political response.

Regards

Tut

They were delegates to a climate conference .If they weren't scientists they were at very minimum relying on the 'settled science ' as a rational for making policy that will impact us all. If policy is made based on bad science then it probably by extension is bad policy.

speechlesstx
Dec 13, 2010, 07:38 AM
I wonder when he will realise the monocarbon dioxide he breathes out is polluting the atmosphere and do the honorable thing.

That would be the obvious solution...

excon
Dec 13, 2010, 07:50 AM
Hello, science deniers:

Water is not poisonous... Most people drink it and don't die. But when taken in excess, it DOES kill (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/ns/us_news-life/).

To argue that since we exhale CO2, it CAN'T be poisonous, even if we put an excessive amount of it into the air, is... well, it's... nonsensical (which is the kindest word I could use).

excon

speechlesstx
Dec 13, 2010, 08:16 AM
I've never said too much CO2 isn't bad, just wondering if those the most concerned about it are willing to lead by example and stop breathing.

excon
Dec 13, 2010, 08:23 AM
just wondering if those the most concerned about it are willing to lead by example and stop breathing.Hello again, Steve:

I understand... They're not credible because they breath, and they'd rather NOT ride their bicycles to meetings...

That's all you got?? Dude!

excon

speechlesstx
Dec 13, 2010, 09:36 AM
I understand... They're not credible because they breath, and they'd rather NOT ride their bicycles to meetings....

That's all you got???? Dude!

You know that ain't all I got, I'm the one that broke the Climategate scandal here. The point is the eco-nuts, like all the other elites, are all too willing to impose solutions on us such as population control, it's time they lead by example.

TUT317
Dec 13, 2010, 01:21 PM
They were delegates to a climate conference .If they weren't scientists they were at very minimum relying on the 'settled science ' as a rational for making policy that will impact us all. If policy is made based on bad science then it probably by extention is bad policy.

Hi Tom,

I don't necessarily disagree with this.

Bad science may lead to good policy while good science may lead to bad policy. Naturally, bad science can lead to bad policy and good science can lead to good policy and anything in between. We are all very bad at predicting the future.

It is just that some of the views on this topic have been, and continue to be 'over the top'.