login
You are in violation of the EPA (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-12-08 9:43 AM in reply to: #2547828 |
Pro  4909    Hailey, ID |  Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPATell that to people who still do not have land line phones in the US. The US is a different beast than other countries. It's larger and has other land issues. What exact UN paper did we miss signing over our decisions to that would have made everyone a broadband user? I have people in my county who do not have broadband, not because we don't have technology, but because it doesn't make sense to spend a million dollars to lay the fiber for the 50 homes. Guess what, tough crap. |
| 2009-12-08 9:47 AM in reply to: #2547828 |
Champion 7347  SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 10:41 AM bradword - 2009-12-08 9:34 AM Since when does technology not get spread over the world? We invent things ALL the time, and it gets brought into Europe and other locations around the world. I just don't get how you take wind technology and say if we don't sign a treaty we will be left behind? Right now, the USA is the cleanest country in the world when it comes to pollution per unit of production created. Other countries pollute less yes, but they also produce far less. If the entire world would be as efficient as the USA, the world would pollute far far less. We do not need the UN to dictate how our businesses run and give us yet another tax for this economy. Tell that to the 30% of my county that cannot get broadband internet, or the 20% that can't get cell phone service. My argument does not say that if we don't do X then Y will inevitably happen. What I am talking about is risk, the risk of a big opportunity cost as a result of resistance to change. It seems to me to be a vaild parallel argument to the econimic risks that are the rallying cry of the anti-agreement folks. I'm sorry what does that have to do with anything? What percentage of China has high speed internet or cell service? Edited by TriRSquared 2009-12-08 9:50 AM |
| 2009-12-08 9:54 AM in reply to: #2547826 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA drewb8 - 2009-12-07 10:40 AM Again, show me where the data was falsified, other than a few cherry picked phrases taken out of context. 95% of the data that went into the CPU model is freely available to the public and no one has raised any questions about it. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html PROXY data IS being "falsified." That might be too strong a word. "Intentionally poorly modeled" might be a better choice. "Hide the decline" doesn't refer to a decline in average global temperature. "Hide the decline" means hiding the decline in the "proxy data" that is supposed to correlate to average global temperature. Read the article, he makes good points. Reader's Digest Version: The model used to de-emphasize previous warm temperatures does NOT fit with current observations. i.e., It is a poor model. |
| 2009-12-08 9:55 AM in reply to: #2546012 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Rides point was that by resisting change we are not on the leading edge of developing new technologies which we could then export to other countries and make profits from instead of importing these technologies (such as broadband) from other countries. |
| 2009-12-08 9:56 AM in reply to: #2547860 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA drewb8 - 2009-12-08 8:55 AM Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Rides point was that by resisting change we are not on the leading edge of developing new technologies which we could then export to other countries and make profits from instead of importing these technologies (such as broadband) from other countries. Since when has the USA being unwilling to change or create technology??????????????????? |
| 2009-12-08 10:00 AM in reply to: #2547864 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA bradword - 2009-12-08 10:56 AM drewb8 - 2009-12-08 8:55 AM Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Rides point was that by resisting change we are not on the leading edge of developing new technologies which we could then export to other countries and make profits from instead of importing these technologies (such as broadband) from other countries. Since when has the USA being unwilling to change or create technology???????????????????This was my response as well. Just becuase something can be invented/done does not mean it will be. There needs to be a need/demand. If the cell phone companies were loosing millions of potential revenue by not putting a cell tower in the middle of Montana they'd do it. However it does not make sense to spend all that money for 2 ranchers and 1000 cattle. Edited by TriRSquared 2009-12-08 10:00 AM |
| 2009-12-08 10:09 AM in reply to: #2547833 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA SeminoleTriathlete - 2009-12-08 10:43 AM gearboy - 2009-12-08 7:00 AM SeminoleTriathlete - 2009-12-07 8:56 PM gearboy - 2009-12-07 12:36 PMI think you are totally missing the point- or deliberately trying to mislead. The issue is not to elimate all CO2. It's to figure out how much can be present and maintain an atmosphere that is conducive to human life. That's odd, I've gone SCUBA diving many times and haven't seized up and died...strange.We all breath oxygen. We need it to survive. In certain conditions, higher concentrations are desirable. But breathing pure O2 is deadly. When SCUBA diving, you get oxygen toxicity, seize, and die. For many years we used high doses of oxygen for premature babies whose lungs were not developed - it caused blindness in thousands. And if you breathe pure O2, it will depress the respiratory drive, and you will die. The point is that regulations are meant to identify acceptable levels of things. Like mouse hairs and insect parts in food. Are you using air tanks, or using pure O2? An "air fill" is atmospheric air. Pure O2 is used by tech divers to more rapidly off-gas nitrogen . Below about 15-20 feet, it is deadly. The one death I had the misfortune to witness on a dive boat occured when the diver, who was using a full face mask with several feeds, including a nitrox mix and pure O2 forgot to switch over on his second dive from the line feeding him pure O2 to the one for nitrox. The last person to see him alive was witness to the seizures at around 30-40 feet, before he was grabbed near the bottom of the dive, had his BC inflated, and the corpse was sent to the surface, where we had to perform CPR on it until the coast guard arrived. Or just ask your local dive shop about oxygen toxicity. Or google it. I'm gonna say your explanation of how that person died falls outside of the realm of your statement "When SCUBA diving, you get oxygen toxicity, seize, and die." That's a blanket statement if I've ever heard one. If it were as simple as that no one would every SCUBA dive. But this is foolish, because this has nothing to do with global warming. I've bolded the statement that I think you missed in reading the original post and the follow up. My point was initially in response to the OP of this thread, that suggested that science is reading CO2 in general as dangerous. The issue is that it is in certain concentrations that it is a problem. We all exhale CO2, and we all need O2 to survive. Go back, re-read the paragraph. Hopefully you will see the flow from the statement that pure O2 is dangerous to the specific example of where/when it is dangerous - i.e. SCUBA diving using pure O2. My example included the information as to how this is so, and was meant to clarify the original statement. If you misread my statement to mean that SCUBA diving produces oxygen toxicity when breathing atmospheric air at recreational dive depths, then I hope the additional statements clarify this. You have to go to very deep depths (several hundred feet) to produce O2 toxicity from atmospheric air. But pure O2 is dangerous below 20 feet. ETA - you will note that I gave other specific examples of where PURE O2 is dangerous. I assumed that it would have made the point more clearly that the issue was in using pure O2 in diving, not general air. But, of course I forgot that when you assume... Edited by gearboy 2009-12-08 10:22 AM |
| 2009-12-08 10:28 AM in reply to: #2547846 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA TriRSquared - 2009-12-08 9:47 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 10:41 AM bradword - 2009-12-08 9:34 AM Since when does technology not get spread over the world? We invent things ALL the time, and it gets brought into Europe and other locations around the world. I just don't get how you take wind technology and say if we don't sign a treaty we will be left behind? Right now, the USA is the cleanest country in the world when it comes to pollution per unit of production created. Other countries pollute less yes, but they also produce far less. If the entire world would be as efficient as the USA, the world would pollute far far less. We do not need the UN to dictate how our businesses run and give us yet another tax for this economy. Tell that to the 30% of my county that cannot get broadband internet, or the 20% that can't get cell phone service. My argument does not say that if we don't do X then Y will inevitably happen. What I am talking about is risk, the risk of a big opportunity cost as a result of resistance to change. It seems to me to be a vaild parallel argument to the econimic risks that are the rallying cry of the anti-agreement folks. I'm sorry what does that have to do with anything? What percentage of China has high speed internet or cell service? I was addressing the first question of "since when does technology not get spread all over the world". My point is that technology does not get spread even all over this country, much less the world. The fact that cells and High-speed are not universal in China either further proves my point. They missed an opportunity or two. |
| 2009-12-08 10:34 AM in reply to: #2547836 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA bradword - 2009-12-08 9:43 AM Tell that to people who still do not have land line phones in the US. The US is a different beast than other countries. It's larger and has other land issues. What exact UN paper did we miss signing over our decisions to that would have made everyone a broadband user? I have people in my county who do not have broadband, not because we don't have technology, but because it doesn't make sense to spend a million dollars to lay the fiber for the 50 homes. Guess what, tough crap. I am not willing to accept "tough crap" as an answer for such an important piece of infastructure being missing from so many peoples' lives. Neither was FDR when he instituted the Rural Electrification Program. What you are pointing out is a failing of corporate interests to look out for anyone other than themselves. i personally know many farmers who could greatly benefit from having real internet. It's really hard to have farms in places where it's profitable to run lines, yet we all have to eat , CEO's included. |
| 2009-12-08 10:37 AM in reply to: #2547970 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 9:34 AM bradword - 2009-12-08 9:43 AM Tell that to people who still do not have land line phones in the US. The US is a different beast than other countries. It's larger and has other land issues. What exact UN paper did we miss signing over our decisions to that would have made everyone a broadband user? I have people in my county who do not have broadband, not because we don't have technology, but because it doesn't make sense to spend a million dollars to lay the fiber for the 50 homes. Guess what, tough crap. I am not willing to accept "tough crap" as an answer for such an important piece of infastructure being missing from so many peoples' lives. Neither was FDR when he instituted the Rural Electrification Program. What you are pointing out is a failing of corporate interests to look out for anyone other than themselves. i personally know many farmers who could greatly benefit from having real internet. It's really hard to have farms in places where it's profitable to run lines, yet we all have to eat , CEO's included. And since when does broadband have to do with running a successful farm? Living in Idaho, I know a bit about this. I help many farmers with their technology. They get high speed when they can, but for most, computer is a bad word. Dial-up is always an option. GASP, we used to all be on it and survive. Now again, in my community there are a bunch of places without broadband due to costs and the rural nature of my county. My wife and I are looking into buying a home in the next year or two. One of my requirements, broadband. It is my choice to buy or not to buy in a place with it. It is NOT the governments job to force Cox cable or Qwest DSL to provide me with it. That being said, my in laws live in a VERY rural area (150 ppl population). Their local phone company applied and got a government grant to run cable and they now have broadband. |
| 2009-12-08 10:44 AM in reply to: #2546012 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Those are the very same arguments the power companies made in the 1930's against REP. No-one at the time could imagine how vital electricity would be. Is information access going to be any less vital in the future? ETA: My point is that not taking advantage of technological advances is bad. By staying out of an area where potentially explosive technological growth is possible, we are risking the ability to be in on the leading edge of that technology and having to play catch-up. Edited by ride_like_u_stole_it 2009-12-08 10:46 AM |
| 2009-12-08 10:44 AM in reply to: #2547956 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 11:28 AM I was addressing the first question of "since when does technology not get spread all over the world". My point is that technology does not get spread even all over this country, much less the world. The fact that cells and High-speed are not universal in China either further proves my point. They missed an opportunity or two. No they didn't. They missed a goat or two. The high populated areas of China have plenty of high speed and cell service. Just like the highly populated areas of the US. It's not a technological issue. It's an economic one. Furthermore you can get internet ANYWHERE in the US via satellite. It just costs more and is a little slower. For that matter you can get phone anywhere as well via satellite. Why is it the government's responsibility to provide cell phone and internet to EVERYONE. Not a necessity last time I checked. Edited by TriRSquared 2009-12-08 10:47 AM |
| 2009-12-08 10:46 AM in reply to: #2547859 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA moondawg14 - 2009-12-08 8:54 AM drewb8 - 2009-12-07 10:40 AM Again, show me where the data was falsified, other than a few cherry picked phrases taken out of context. 95% of the data that went into the CPU model is freely available to the public and no one has raised any questions about it. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html PROXY data IS being "falsified." That might be too strong a word. "Intentionally poorly modeled" might be a better choice. "Hide the decline" doesn't refer to a decline in average global temperature. "Hide the decline" means hiding the decline in the "proxy data" that is supposed to correlate to average global temperature. Read the article, he makes good points. Reader's Digest Version: The model used to de-emphasize previous warm temperatures does NOT fit with current observations. i.e., It is a poor model. Yes, yo uare correct that the hide the decline refers to proxy data. The problem is that after about 1960 the proxy data diverge from actual observations - basically the wood density seems to become more insensitive to temperature and the researchers don't know why. It is outlined in this paper. Because this divergence is unexplained (I read a theory that some researchers beleive it has to do with nuclear testing in the 50's but I think that's just speculation) the reaesrchers themselves recommend NOT using the data past 1960 for any reconstructions and that's why the modelers "hid' it. In fact, the proxy data after 1960 display values which are warmer than the observed values so to include them would have actually skewed the results wamer. "As far as the 'fudge' factors that are alleged, there were never any studies published which used this code in the models. There was a draft paper apparently where they explain why they used these corrections but it never made it into print. "Warm-season temperature reconstructions with extended spatial coverage have also been developed, making use of the spatial correlation evident in temperature variability to predict pasttemperatures even in grid boxes without any tree-ring density data. The calibration was undertaken on a box-by-box basis, and each grid-box temperature series was predicted using multiple linear regression against the leading principal components (PCs) of the calibrated, gridded reconstructions described in section 4.4. The PCs were computed from the correlation matrix of the reconstructions, so the calibration was in effect removed and similar results would have been obtained if the PCs of the raw, gridded density data had been used instead. The only difference is that the calibrated data with the artificial removal of the recent decline were used for the PCA. Using the adjusted data avoids the problems otherwise introduced by the existence of the decline (see section 4), though all reconstructions after 1930 will be artificially closer to the real temperatures because of the adjustment(the adjustment is quite small until about 1960 – Figure 5c). Tests with the unadjusted data show that none of the spatial patterns associated with the leading PCs are affected by the adjustment, and theonly PC time series that is affected is the leading PC and then only during the post-1930 period. Inother words, the adjustment pattern is very similar to the leading EOF pattern, and orthogonal to theothers, and thus only influences the first PC time series.” However, if you'd like the actual raw, uncorrected data from the temperature reconstructions you can get it here. |
| 2009-12-08 10:48 AM in reply to: #2548013 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA TriRSquared - 2009-12-08 10:44 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 11:28 AM I was addressing the first question of "since when does technology not get spread all over the world". My point is that technology does not get spread even all over this country, much less the world. The fact that cells and High-speed are not universal in China either further proves my point. They missed an opportunity or two. No they didn't. They missed a goat or two. The high populated areas of China have plenty of high speed and cell service. Just like the highly populated areas of the US. It's not a technological issue. It's an economic one. Furthermore you can get internet ANYWHERE in the US via satellite. It just costs more and is a little slower. For that matter you can get phone anywhere as well via satellite. Why is it the government's responsibility to provide cell phone and internet to EVERYONE. Not a necessity last time I checked. Again, see the example of rural electrification. Information access is completely analagous. |
| 2009-12-08 11:06 AM in reply to: #2547864 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA bradword - 2009-12-08 8:56 AM drewb8 - 2009-12-08 8:55 AM Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Rides point was that by resisting change we are not on the leading edge of developing new technologies which we could then export to other countries and make profits from instead of importing these technologies (such as broadband) from other countries. Since when has the USA being unwilling to change or create technology???????????????????I never said anything like that. There are plenty of examples where the US has been the world leader in developing and disseminating a new technology. Were using an example right now to talk about this. But there are certainly areas where we haven't been the leaders in developing new technologies and have missed opportunities. The development of cell phones and high speed networks is an example. Japan and Korea have developed their cell phone technology well before us and that's part of the reason we still import alot of that technology from Japan, Korea, Scandinavia... Green energy is another area where we could potentially be world leaders in developing new technoligies that eventually everyone in the world is going to need - we have the brains and the resources - and exporting them to the rest of the world, but like triR said, we won't develop these technologies until we need to and by that time other countries could have already taken the lead and we'll be importing technologies from them instead. There are opportunity costs to doing nothing... Edited by drewb8 2009-12-08 11:08 AM |
| 2009-12-08 11:11 AM in reply to: #2548089 |
Champion 6786 Two seat rocket plane | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA drewb8 - 2009-12-08 11:06 AM bradword - 2009-12-08 8:56 AM drewb8 - 2009-12-08 8:55 AM Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Rides point was that by resisting change we are not on the leading edge of developing new technologies which we could then export to other countries and make profits from instead of importing these technologies (such as broadband) from other countries. Since when has the USA being unwilling to change or create technology???????????????????I never said anything like that. There are plenty of examples where the US has been the world leader in developing and disseminating a new technology. Were using an example right now to talk about this. But there are certainly areas where we haven't been the leaders in developing new technologies and have missed opportunities. The development of cell phones and high speed networks is an example. Japan and Korea have developed their cell phone technology well before us and that's part of the reason we still import alot of that technology from Japan, Korea, Scandinavia... Green energy is another area where we could potentially be world leaders in developing new technoligies - we have the brains and the resources - and exporting them to the rest of the world, but like triR said, we won't develop these technologies until we need to and by that time other countries could have already taken the lead and we'll be importing technologies from them instead. There are opportunity costs to doing nothing... Thanks, that's exactly what I am saying. Look for opportunity in change. We have more potential to become THE leader in non-petroleum/non-coal energy, how profitable could that be?
|
| 2009-12-08 11:16 AM in reply to: #2548111 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 10:11 AM drewb8 - 2009-12-08 11:06 AM bradword - 2009-12-08 8:56 AM drewb8 - 2009-12-08 8:55 AM Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Rides point was that by resisting change we are not on the leading edge of developing new technologies which we could then export to other countries and make profits from instead of importing these technologies (such as broadband) from other countries. Since when has the USA being unwilling to change or create technology???????????????????I never said anything like that. There are plenty of examples where the US has been the world leader in developing and disseminating a new technology. Were using an example right now to talk about this. But there are certainly areas where we haven't been the leaders in developing new technologies and have missed opportunities. The development of cell phones and high speed networks is an example. Japan and Korea have developed their cell phone technology well before us and that's part of the reason we still import alot of that technology from Japan, Korea, Scandinavia... Green energy is another area where we could potentially be world leaders in developing new technoligies - we have the brains and the resources - and exporting them to the rest of the world, but like triR said, we won't develop these technologies until we need to and by that time other countries could have already taken the lead and we'll be importing technologies from them instead. There are opportunity costs to doing nothing... Thanks, that's exactly what I am saying. Look for opportunity in change. We have more potential to become THE leader in non-petroleum/non-coal energy, how profitable could that be?
We already are. |
| 2009-12-08 11:21 AM in reply to: #2548137 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA bradword - 2009-12-08 10:16 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 10:11 AM We already are. drewb8 - 2009-12-08 11:06 AM bradword - 2009-12-08 8:56 AM drewb8 - 2009-12-08 8:55 AM Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Rides point was that by resisting change we are not on the leading edge of developing new technologies which we could then export to other countries and make profits from instead of importing these technologies (such as broadband) from other countries. Since when has the USA being unwilling to change or create technology???????????????????I never said anything like that. There are plenty of examples where the US has been the world leader in developing and disseminating a new technology. Were using an example right now to talk about this. But there are certainly areas where we haven't been the leaders in developing new technologies and have missed opportunities. The development of cell phones and high speed networks is an example. Japan and Korea have developed their cell phone technology well before us and that's part of the reason we still import alot of that technology from Japan, Korea, Scandinavia... Green energy is another area where we could potentially be world leaders in developing new technoligies - we have the brains and the resources - and exporting them to the rest of the world, but like triR said, we won't develop these technologies until we need to and by that time other countries could have already taken the lead and we'll be importing technologies from them instead. There are opportunity costs to doing nothing... Thanks, that's exactly what I am saying. Look for opportunity in change. We have more potential to become THE leader in non-petroleum/non-coal energy, how profitable could that be?
Are we? I know the largest wind turbine manufacter in the world is building a production plant here in Colorado but the company is Danish. I know we have some scattershot research going on such as NREL and there are companies that are working on developing alternative energy but I really have no idea whether or not we are leading in developing these technologies. |
| 2009-12-08 11:21 AM in reply to: #2548162 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA [ bradword - 2009-12-08 10:16 AM We already are. Are we? Not being facetious, I really don't know. I know the largest wind turbine manufacter in the world is building a production plant here in Colorado but the company is Danish. I know we have some scattershot research going on such as NREL and there are companies that are working on developing alternative energy but I really have no idea whether or not we are leading in developing these technologies but we should be. Edited by drewb8 2009-12-08 11:23 AM |
| 2009-12-08 11:23 AM in reply to: #2548167 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA Whoa. I'm the world leader in triple post technology. Edited by drewb8 2009-12-08 11:24 AM |
| 2009-12-08 11:46 AM in reply to: #2548021 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA drewb8 - 2009-12-07 11:46 AM Yes, yo uare correct that the hide the decline refers to proxy data. The problem is that after about 1960 the proxy data diverge from actual observations - basically the wood density seems to become more insensitive to temperature and the researchers don't know why. It is outlined in this paper. Because this divergence is unexplained (I read a theory that some researchers beleive it has to do with nuclear testing in the 50's but I think that's just speculation) the reaesrchers themselves recommend NOT using the data past 1960 for any reconstructions and that's why the modelers "hid' it. In fact, the proxy data after 1960 display values which are warmer than the observed values so to include them would have actually skewed the results wamer. I perceive that your argument is: -- We had a simultaneous, worldwide change in the growth tendencies of trees with respect to temperature in 1960. And this is more likely than: -- We have a poor model for proxy data. Even assuming your argument is correct, we still have the unanswered question of: How many times have the world's trees decided to "grow differently" ... especially during the 1-2000 years of predicted proxy data? (that is going to read a little snarky, but I assure you that's not the intent and the question is sincere... ) |
| 2009-12-08 11:54 AM in reply to: #2547770 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA You have a ton of stuff in here so I'll comment on each: "Let's look at it this way, if some mandate for a technological change comes out of this convention, (let's just hypothetically say that something like an increased threshhold for percentage of wind-driven power generation, just a hypothetical). Let's also say that the U.S. has no part of it, but the Europeans or the Koreans sign on and develop some awesome wind turbine breakthrough, then we get left behind in yet another technological breakthrough ( like near universal broadband or cell phone coverage)." Edited by Jackemy 2009-12-08 11:56 AM |
| 2009-12-08 11:58 AM in reply to: #2547826 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA drewb8 - 2009-12-08 9:40 AM NXS - 2009-12-08 5:28 AM Never said the entire climate community was conspiring to falsify data, just the leading researchers for those that believe AGW. If the leading researchers are doing this and getting mega grants, then what about the lesser known reseacher trying to become a player in the movement and grab some grant money? There are many researchers that don't buy into the man made version, for many reasons including that for the last 10 years there has been no warming. Many believe GW is related to solar activity and have data to back it up as well. I guess when the leaders in research are manipulating and dumping original data, it should call into question ALL of their research and the role they play in the whole global warming movement. Again, show me where the data was falsified, other than a few cherry picked phrases taken out of context. 95% of the data that went into the CPU model is freely available to the public and no one has raised any questions about it. And you can be sure there are people looking for just such holes. There has been no manipulating or dumping of data and to call into question the integrity of every scientist working on the subject because a couple of guys tried to keep some papers from being published is no more valid than saying everyone serving in the army is a torturer because of Abu Grhaib. Not to mention that there are other data sets which were collected independently which are nearly identical to the one you are questioning. Yes, the researchers probably steer their research towards where the grant money is, just like any research field. But it doesn't change the fact that they still have to publish their findings and have it scrutinized by other scientists, including ones who disagree we're causing warming. No one questions whether or not cancer is real and you can be sure that those scientists chase the funding dollars and want to show that their findings are correct just as much as in any other hot field for research The bottom line is that climate change is a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing and provides explanations for why we are seeing them. It's obviously not 100% bombproof, there are several areas where our understanding is still incomplete, such as the effect of clouds, but overall the theory does a good job of predicting what were are observing and we can have a high confidence that the overall theory that were are causing a portion of the warming is correct. Other theories, such as that it's just a natural cycle have two major problems 1) they have no way of explaining the warming we are observing (studies have shown that solar forcing is NOT responsible for the warming such as this and this - although if you know of any more recent studies showing it is then point me to them please - and contrary to what you state, there HAS been warming over the past 10 years). And 2) they have no way of explaining why, despite the fact that CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas, the increase of 35% of CO2 that we have added to the atmosphere is having no effect at all. All the people who oppose the idea of climate change seem do so far is to point out uncertainties or inconsistencies in small parts of the overall case for climate change and then justify it by saying the entire theory can't be true because it would wreck the economy. Personally I think that's good and necessary for advancing our understanding - you need people to question assumptions and point out uncertainties so you know where to target future studies or see where mistakes have been made. But overall, it's just smaller areas of understanding, it doens't change the overall picture and if the best argument is that all the data and thousands of studies that show that we are affecting the climate are tainted because all the scientists (or only the leading ones?) are faking their studies and pushing it thru the literature without anyone catching on, that seems like a pretty weak leg to stand on. The CRU admitted they dumped most of the raw temp data.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece That is not something that is done and their excuse is pretty lame. Another good read showing the implications of the scandle is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html You and I will probably never agree on the man made global warming debate and that is OK. I just don't want to see economic disaster and the transfer of US dollars (borrowed since we are so far in the hole we have to look up to look down) to third world countries to pay for our industrial sins. It is about money, it always is, its the nature of the game those in power play. |
| 2009-12-08 12:17 PM in reply to: #2548237 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA moondawg14 - 2009-12-08 10:46 AM I perceive that your argument is: -- We had a simultaneous, worldwide change in the growth tendencies of trees with respect to temperature in 1960. And this is more likely than: -- We have a poor model for proxy data. Even assuming your argument is correct, we still have the unanswered question of: How many times have the world's trees decided to "grow differently" ... especially during the 1-2000 years of predicted proxy data? (that is going to read a little snarky, but I assure you that's not the intent and the question is sincere... ) No, that's a great question and goes to the heart of the matter - how do we know that proxy data does do a good job of representing actual conditions and how do we know when it doesn't and thus should not be used in temperature reconstructions. for more recent proxies it's possible to compare them against actual measured values to see if there is any correlation. However obviously when you go back thousands of years this isn;t possible. There are statistical tests and techniques you can use to verify the data doesn't appear to be stistically unrepresentative such as done in this study and it's also possible to compare the proxies against what is predicted using climate models such as was done here. It is also possible to compare one proxy such as tree rings against another that you might have more confidence in such as ice cores. But overall it's important to remember that each proxy is just one part of the record and some are more reliable than others. Proxies such as tree rings are only one input into the temperature reconstructions (not all of which use every available proxy) and are not the sole piece of data being used to reconstruct temperatures. |
| 2009-12-08 12:44 PM in reply to: #2548025 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: You are in violation of the EPA ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 11:48 AM TriRSquared - 2009-12-08 10:44 AM ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 11:28 AM I was addressing the first question of "since when does technology not get spread all over the world". My point is that technology does not get spread even all over this country, much less the world. The fact that cells and High-speed are not universal in China either further proves my point. They missed an opportunity or two. No they didn't. They missed a goat or two. The high populated areas of China have plenty of high speed and cell service. Just like the highly populated areas of the US. It's not a technological issue. It's an economic one. Furthermore you can get internet ANYWHERE in the US via satellite. It just costs more and is a little slower. For that matter you can get phone anywhere as well via satellite. Why is it the government's responsibility to provide cell phone and internet to EVERYONE. Not a necessity last time I checked. Again, see the example of rural electrification. Information access is completely analagous. No it's not. They have television (which provides a good deal of the nation's information) and if they want can get internet. Again it just costs more. Or go the the local library. Electrification was a necessity to grow these areas. FIOS is not. It's not analogous. Edited by TriRSquared 2009-12-08 12:47 PM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK