• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Koch Bros. Pay for Environment Study......

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,722
8,025
146

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
350
126
It could be that we have too many harmful emissions, or that God is a fan of "low and slow" BBQ and we are nearing the main course :(
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
The debate hasn't been about whether or not the earth is warming for a while. The issues are how much it's warming, how much of that is caused human activity, and what sacrifices we are willing to the make to the reduce it if we are causing a significant portion of the warming.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
I hope you were joking. It makes perfect sense. However it does require a shift greater than that of an average year.

NY Times

Large shifts in the axis do cause climate changes, Dr. LeGrande said. The cyclical change in the axis tilt associated with astronomical changes, called obliquity, has a very long cycle, about 41,000 years, and changes the tilt from around 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees. Right now it is about 23.4 degrees.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
It could be that we have too many harmful emissions, or that God is a fan of "low and slow" BBQ and we are nearing the main course :(
Are you sure about that? Would you swear that there are no skeptics claiming that we either a) aren't warming, or b) are warming substantially less than mainstream science says?

I could supply some links but I'll give you an opportunity to qualify your statement first.
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
8
81
The debate hasn't been about whether or not the earth is warming for a while. The issues are how much it's warming, how much of that is caused human activity, and what sacrifices we are willing to the make to the reduce it if we are causing a significant portion of the warming.
The debate has been for a while about whether the earth is warming. There was that huge debacle about doubting temperature measuring stations last year.
 

ComradeBeck

Senior member
Jun 16, 2011
262
0
0
The debate has been for a while about whether the earth is warming. There was that huge debacle about doubting temperature measuring stations last year.
Which were found once again to be baseless attacks on science.

If you keep throwing shit against the wall over and over sooner or later something will stick. Or so big industry hopes.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,722
8,025
146
What some folks above missed was this study was done by skeptical scientists to look for issues with the weather data taken from the stations due to the heat island effect.

It was partially funded by the Koch boys because they have a vested interest in discrediting global warming. The study instead supports global warming.
 
Last edited:

ComradeBeck

Senior member
Jun 16, 2011
262
0
0
What some folks above missed was this study was done by skeptical scientists to look for issues with the weather data taken from the stations due to the heat island effect.

It was partially funded by the Koch boys because they have a vested interest in discrediting global warming. The study instead supports global warming.
Ok, I'll bite,

Reality and conservative agenda are almost never one in the same, your point? Should we act surprised that this is not been falsified blatantly?

I generally do not subscribe to conspiracy, thus 2 things explain this anamoly:

A: They screwed up, someone is gonna wear cement boots soon

or most likely B

B: They are gonna cash in on the "green" movement and find a way to put a fake label on stuff that pollutes 10x more, ironically. That is more Koch style.
 
Last edited:

Matthiasa

Diamond Member
May 4, 2009
5,755
22
81
As mentioned the earth warming up isn't what has been debated... The cause is, which this study did not go into.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
I hope you were joking. It makes perfect sense. However it does require a shift greater than that of an average year.

Large shifts in the axis do cause climate changes, Dr. LeGrande said. The cyclical change in the axis tilt associated with astronomical changes, called obliquity, has a very long cycle, about 41,000 years, and changes the tilt from around 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees. Right now it is about 23.4 degrees.
Is that really your argument? Let me break out the calculator real quick... a 2.4 degree shift in the axis spread out over a period of 41,000 years means that we are shifting on our axis an average of 0.0000585 degrees per year. In the last 60 years (where we've gone up 1 degree in temperature), that equates to a total of 0.00351 degrees of axis shift. Now, if axis shift is really responsible, then over the course of that 41,000 year period, give that we've gone up 1 degree in the last 60 years, we could extrapolate and say that our Earth's climate will change by 683 degrees. If you're thinking that sounds illogical, that's because it is; there is no way that a 3 hundredth of a degree shift in the Earth's axis has caused the global warming we can measure today. Absolutely none.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Is that really your argument? Let me break out the calculator real quick... a 2.4 degree shift in the axis spread out over a period of 41,000 years means that we are shifting on our axis an average of 0.0000585 degrees per year. In the last 60 years (where we've gone up 1 degree in temperature), that equates to a total of 0.00351 degrees of axis shift. Now, if axis shift is really responsible, then over the course of that 41,000 year period, give that we've gone up 1 degree in the last 60 years, we could extrapolate and say that our Earth's climate will change by 683 degrees. If you're thinking that sounds illogical, that's because it is; there is no way that a 3 hundredth of a degree shift in the Earth's axis has caused the global warming we can measure today. Absolutely none.
Nope not my argument. Its a fact. But as stated and glossed over by you I agreed that it would take more than just a normal shift from year to year. What else do you want? My first born?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
BEST shows that the trend has been warming since about 1810. It is a warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age ( 1500 to 1800 ). As for funny science news you can even see it being blamed on Christopher Columbus in this "science" magazine. Yeah you read it right, the Little Ice Age is now being blamed on Columbus. Poor guy gets blamed for all sorts of things now a days.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/335168/title/Columbus_blamed_for_Little_Ice_Age
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,809
20,673
136
It could be that we have too many harmful emissions, or that God is a fan of "low and slow" BBQ and we are nearing the main course :(
If that's the way I gotta go, then I don't mind. I will gladly do my part.

/salutes
/eagle
/guns
/fireworks
/flushes toilet 6000 times, consecutively
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,809
20,673
136
The debate hasn't been about whether or not the earth is warming for a while. The issues are how much it's warming, how much of that is caused human activity, and what sacrifices we are willing to the make to the reduce it if we are causing a significant portion of the warming.
yeah, but some people still think it's impossible.

some people still think a debate exists involving the fact of evolution.


...some people.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,809
20,673
136
Where does that study mention man made global warming or CO2?
are you that old-ass hand-in-the-grave dude that drove along Oxford street the other day, yelling at me from your Dodge Stratus something about "Fuck you You CRAZY asshole! learn to cross the street motherfucker! You couldn't wait 3 FUCKING seconds to let me drive? You FUCK!" after it was clearly my right of way to cross the street and you had to delay your precious day by a tragic 3 seconds?

I couldn't help but laugh at the old senile man driving his dodge stratus, doing his best not to run over pedestrians that he clearly couldn't see, and yet taking the time to slow down, delay those behind him, only to curse at those people who ruined his precious 3 seconds of life.

Kudos to you, old man.

:thumbsup:
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,114
3,404
136
And Rupert Murdoch's infamous News Corp. has majority control over National Geographic to slip some of his propaganda (like the George Bush 9-11 airing) into what I thought in times past was a devout non-politically motivated environmentally friendly media outlet, and oil companies put out green commercials to give themselves a "soft side" and on and on and on.

These rich bastards got nothing better to do than to keep fooling the foolish in their quest to pave their private roads with gold.

Their motto- "To beat'um, you gotta OWN'UM....quietly".:sneaky:
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
Whether the data is correct or not, it doesn't take a scientist to see we have some problems. There are still lakes and streams in the US that aren't safe to eat the fish out of or swim in. UCLA isn't just a college but is what happens when the smog lifts. Things are getting better here in the US, but there are some countries that are absolutely laying waste to their environment like China and Russia.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,057
3,603
126
A study on whether the recorded thermometer data shows a global warming trend. They've concluded that it does.

How does one presume to measure global temperature with incomplete data? What's the chance of error or sample contamination in determining a warming signal far smaller than the background noise of day to day fluctuation?

I'd trust satellite data far more readily, but that's a problem for you because you demand far reaching economic action NOW, and there are important 60 year ocean cycles we need to take into account with satellite data only going back 30 years. The current flat trend of the past 15 years isn't helping your argument while we wait and collect more data.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,057
3,603
126
Whether the data is correct or not, it doesn't take a scientist to see we have some problems. There are still lakes and streams in the US that aren't safe to eat the fish out of or swim in. UCLA isn't just a college but is what happens when the smog lifts. Things are getting better here in the US, but there are some countries that are absolutely laying waste to their environment like China and Russia.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature. Pollution is a serious concern that needs to be dealt with, but they'd rather go to war over CO2.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
A study on whether the recorded thermometer data shows a global warming trend. They've concluded that it does.

How does one presume to measure global temperature with incomplete data? What's the chance of error or sample contamination in determining a warming signal far smaller than the background noise of day to day fluctuation?
What evidence do you have that they didn't have sufficient data to make the conclusion that they did?
I'd trust satellite data far more readily, but that's a problem for you because you demand far reaching economic action NOW, and there are important 60 year ocean cycles we need to take into account with satellite data only going back 30 years. The current flat trend of the past 15 years isn't helping your argument while we wait and collect more data.
"Far reaching economic action" isn't a scientific argument, and anyone who brings it up is implicitly suggesting scientific conclusions should be at least partially based on how convenient they are.

Obviously economic concerns should be taken into account when determining how to respond to scientific discoveries. But science is science even if you don't like what it says.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
That has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature. Pollution is a serious concern that needs to be dealt with, but they'd rather go to war over CO2.
To be fair, so would the the other side, which is hardly composed of concerned environmentalists. It's a lot easier to ignore the entire pollution issue when people can lump anyone concerned about anything in with Al Gore.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY