Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Schultzz View Post
    Professor Hobbitt - Thank you for the referral. I read the follow up article and all it really says is that Dr. Muller has changed his stance. The article says nothing about refuting his first findings:

    "How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does." R Muller

    Yes, we see signs of the earth warming but this warming effect may be caused by solar flares. We also have seen shorter periods of cooling too. Do you remember back a few years ago when the scientists all agreed we were entering another ice age? I believe it was back in the 70's.

    The earth heats up and cools down. So does the argument. The question should be why cannot we become better stewards of our environment? Certainly "greenhouse" gasses trapped cannot be healthy especially in China. Also the incinerators in Ohio cannot be doing our ADK's any good either. So yes let us work toward taking better care of our bountiful natural wonders, but let us also be aware of the greed which produced them and know that it may still be present in those who would profit from our present condition.

    Just as you don't have to be a dog to be a veterinarian - just because you may have degrees behind your name doesn't necessarily indicate that you have the right to make radical statements such as the Rochester Professor. What it does give you the right to be is wrong by the same standard as anyone else "guessing". It's just that by being somewhat prominent more people are reached by your statement. Remember what they say about opinions?
    Ok, so first you refer to his article to validate your opinion. However when he changes his stance, which would be an indication that the article he wrote was flawed in some way or wrong, you then find an excuse to not invaladate your opoinion based on his self admitted flawed inforformation or interpretation of the information?

    He admits he was wrong by his change in stance. Therefore it is implied that his "facts" were incorrect or his intrepation was flawed. He doesn't need to ay his earlier facts were incorrect directly he says that inncorrectly with this statement:

    CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
    My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.


    So here are the facts: He was wrong, he admits he was wrong, and if anyone is basing their opinion about the non existence of global warming on his earlier findings, then they are wrong too. One would hope that they too would admit that they were wrong.
    "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by HappyHiker View Post
      The man is probably frustrated. If we put people in jail for being stupid we would need way too many jails.

      There is a large amount of people that don't even believe in evolution, some of them really believe the earth is 6000 years old. They have the facts to prove it too. One guy is building a full scale arc with unicorns (They are in the King James version of the bible).

      People believe what the want to believe and they also have a strong desire to control what other people believe. People would rather win an argument by arguing than really understand what they are arguing about.

      People don't like being told that their culture is all wrong. They are proud of who they are.

      People also don't like authority. I mean everyone in the country is a rebel practically.

      People are crazy too. My brother in law was going on and on about how bad unions are. The strange thing is that he is a teacher... I did not point out the obvios to him. You can't help people.

      How are you going to get people to believe that an oderless, colourless gas is going to destroy their way of life? It is never going to happen.

      But the rich people should wake up and start looking at this. They should never forget that the rich were taxed a 90% during and after world war II. They will pay for climate change because only they have the money to do it. If we start now it will cost less.
      Point out what obvious to him? I have worked on Union jobs and been a union worker. Obviously I benefited from being a member (I had no choice, I had to be a union member in order to work). However the union was bad. It protected people who were lazy. It caused employers to be forced to use three people for a job that required one. It forced a lot of down time waiting for someone from a different trade to come an perform a task the union said only he could do. So, while yes, I benefited from the union in pay, to be honest the union was bad because it drove up the price of goods and services unnecessarily. I laud your brother for being honest, I don't think he is the one who needs help.

      I think that one of the real problems is that people do understand that there is climate change. And it is "An Inconvenient Truth", because it means that we have to take steps and make sacrifices which requires giving up some creature comforts and most Americans just don't want to do that.
      "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

      Comment


      • #18
        Never forget that some people will work other people to death if they could. I firmly believe that some people loved slavery. The power and excitment of whipping those slaves was a good time for them.

        Unions are a protection from that. They do go too far sometimes. Every work bennefit you have comes from a union. I hope you are enjoying your weekend. Sunday off came from organized religion while Saturday off came from a union.
        Leave No Trace! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXO1uY0MvmQ
        ThereAndBack http://www.hikesafe.com/
        ADK Crash Course http://www.adk.org/trails/High_Peaks_Hike-Backpack.aspx

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by redhawk View Post
          I think that one of the real problems is that people do understand that there is climate change. And it is "An Inconvenient Truth", because it means that we have to take steps and make sacrifices which requires giving up some creature comforts and most Americans just don't want to do that.
          Its not just Americans, its worldwide.

          "Last year a paltry 5% of all Europeans rated climate change as their most pressing concern. In the new poll the percentage has gone down to 4%.

          The new Eurobarometer poll must be depressive reading for EU’s climate change commissioner Connie Hedegaard and her fellow alarmists in the European Commission. The number of people who rank climate change as their most pressing concern is barely recognizable.

          Last year a paltry 5% of all Europeans rated climate change as their most pressing concern. In the new poll the percentage has gone down to 4%. Most likely climate change will soon disappear completely, despite of the barrage of alarmist propaganda produced in Brussels (and funded by European taxpayers).

          Only in Malta (22%), Sweden (19%) and Germany (10%) does the number get into double digits. Even in Hedegaard’s home country Denmark, only 9% of the people rate climate change as their main concern. And in seven countries Slovakia, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, Latvia, Estonia and Greece the number is zero (0%)".

          Comment


          • #20
            It amazes me that we accept the opinions of those with vested interests as valid. We are now talking about CO2 emissions but the same arguments and tactics have been used since the beginning of our country. Show me an industry that has exercised self-governance and restraint from the beginning and responded to the best science of the day. My industry (aviation) may be the closest.

            So what happened to the great pine forest on Cape Cod? Ships masts. And the forests of Maine? Cut to the ground. And the forests of the Catskills and low elevation Adirondacks? What about acid rain and coal-fired power plants? Remember the industry argument that 'you can't prove it's us'? Same as the cigarette industry. And I'm old enough to remember the rivers running toxic with the dye of the day from the thread mills across New England. They put forth the same arguments, too. In all these cases science eventually won the argument.

            So I challenge climate change deniers: What's different this time? Why is your argument superior and why should I believe you?
            Oscar Wilde:Work is the curse of the drinking class

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by vtflyfish View Post
              It amazes me that we accept the opinions of those with vested interests as valid.
              You bring up a good point....



              " Al Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

              Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”

              "Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

              Comment


              • #22
                Thanks, Limekiln. You made that point better than I could have. There are vested interest on all sides of this "debate." If you want to find out what's really happening, follow the money; not the science.

                Comment


                • #23
                  "If you want to find out what's really happening, follow the money; not the science."

                  Good Point.

                  And where do you think the money comes from for these "research" projects? The universities? Guess again.
                  Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Schultzz View Post
                    "If you want to find out what's really happening, follow the money; not the science."

                    Good Point.

                    And where do you think the money comes from for these "research" projects? The universities? Guess again.


                    So there is money on both sides, but both can't be wrong, or right. The OP was about some ill chosen words from some philosphy professor. Use common sense, is the amount of greenhouse gases being released in the atmosphere a good thing or bad? Does it contribute towards what most agree is climate change, or is it a drop in the bucket? Ones biases will always take over since none of us here, so far as I can tell, are capable of doing the actual science. I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!
                    “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                    ― Cormac McCarthy

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Glen View Post
                      I'd like you to respond to Redhawks comment about your cherry picking quotes and when the person quoting them reverses themselves, you choose not to. I call bias!
                      People's opinion change all the time. Perhaps Al Gore would like to explain his continued stance since Roger Revelle (his mentor and credited with being one of the first scientists to pose the CO2 threat to the climate) changed his mind and cautioned for waiting for more data before enacting solutions.

                      "A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate."

                      Here is an entertaining and well researched video documentary from my friend John Coleman at KUSI-TV about the history of the Keeling Curve and its founder. Watch: 

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                        People's opinion change all the time. Perhaps Al Gore would like to explain his continued stance since Roger Revelle (his mentor and credited with being one of the first scientists to pose the CO2 threat to the climate) changed his mind and cautioned for waiting for more data before enacting solutions.

                        "A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate."

                        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/1...g-scare-began/

                        First, you're answering for another poster. Second, we could do "he said/she said" all day long. Go back to my post and let me know whether or not what we discharge into the atmosphere is a good thing. Simple question, right?
                        “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                        ― Cormac McCarthy

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Glen View Post
                          First, you're answering for another poster. Second, we could do "he said/she said" all day long. Go back to my post and let me know whether or not what we discharge into the atmosphere is a good thing. Simple question, right?
                          Glen the IPCC already gave you an answer about CO2. If any subsequent rise in temperature is less than 2c than it is livable.

                          And Glen here is a simple question for you: have global temperatures leveled off over the last 15 years despite CO2 levels increasing yearly from a rate of 1.5 ppm in the 80's and 90's to 2.2 ppm per year.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Limekiln View Post
                            You bring up a good point....



                            " Al Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

                            Optimistic that a Democrat-controlled Congress would pass cap-and-trade legislation Gore lobbied for, GIM and David Blood’s old GSAM firm took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for carbon trading. Accordingly, CCX was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”

                            http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...vestment-hype/
                            However, there is a flaw in the reasoning. Long before that, back in the 80's. Al Gore was carrying the message of global warming. So, in reality his investments in companies that would be involved in cutting back on climate change was a matter of putting his money where his mouth was. That is a trait that is very uncommon.

                            And after years of trying to pass on the dangers of climate control to no avail, he felt he had to do something to try to get the message to the masses, so he then published "An Inconvenient Truth". Gore was warning about Climate Change back in the 80's

                            Would anyone be surprised to know that the first calculations warning about human induced climate change occurred in 1896? Do some research on James Croll.

                            So, I would laud Gore on investing in a company that worked on solutions to a problem he passionately believed existed, rather then compare him to the people who deny the existence of human caused climate change because it would lower their profits.
                            "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                              Glen the IPCC already gave you an answer about CO2. If any subsequent rise in temperature is less than 2c than it is livable.

                              And Glen here is a simple question for you: have global temperatures leveled off over the last 15 years despite CO2 levels increasing yearly from a rate of 1.5 ppm in the 80's and 90's to 2.2 ppm per year.

                              Cityboy, 15 years is not much of a sample. Aren't the oceans absorbing and buffering some of this, for now? Again, I'm not a scientist and I don't know the answer, but this is the same argument that the acid rain deniers would use in the 1970's and 80's. A lot of cherry picked figures with a strong PR campaign tossed in to make it sound like it was insane to think particulates from the mid west could affect us here. This is no longer in dispute but the damage is done. The point being we cannot afford to get this one wrong and since I don't know the answer I will err on the side of caution. Also, it seems your dislike of a certain politician(s) informs your opinion strongly. If it wasn't Gore but a staunch conservative would you feel differently?
                              “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                              ― Cormac McCarthy

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by redhawk View Post
                                Long before that, back in the 80's. Al Gore was carrying the message of global warming. So, in reality his investments in companies that would be involved in cutting back on climate change was a matter of putting his money where his mouth was. That is a trait that is very uncommon.
                                That's one way to look at it, but I don't think Al Gore is as pure as you think he is.
                                "Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X