The world versus 40 Republican Senators: climate change

[Craig234]

YOU call everybody an idiot.

No, I don't; not even close. You were dishonest.

Anyway, this consensus you talk about among scientists is nothing more than a general agreement that human activity is influencing the earth and warming it. There is no consensus as to the degree it's warming it, how much damage (or benefit) it's giving, or how to reverse it.

You reverse straw man everything; you say "the scientific community" says something like mankind is warming the planet and then make the impossible jump to specifics, which are infrequently given by the scientific community to begin with and when they are they are in great disharmony.

There's a name for what you are alleging, it's "appeal to authority", not "reverse straw man", which I give you credit for coining as a verb.

The thing is, like any logical fallacy, it's not always incorrect, it depends on the specifics. Is the 'authority' in question credible on the issue being discussed? Is its opinion relevant? In this case yes, it's not a fallacy.

You accuse me of claiming the scientists things more specific than they do, but you give no specifics. So, you have no argument to discuss.

I have some bad news for you: this is a discussion forum, and no rigorous scientific review is likely to take place.

The cherry picked bits from someone claiming to try are very likely to be inconclusive and overhyped for what they show.

A reference like what the world's academies of science have a consensus on is a very useful measure for the issue.

 

[Craig234]

Craig this it he link I posted in the other climate thread.

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.AGWdataAnalysis%20v11.pdf

Thanks. That was the problem - I'm using a PS3 browser and it cannot do .pdf's.

OK. I googled instead, and while I found .pdf's, I also found this very useful site:

http://dlcinci.blogspot.com/2009/10/burt-rutan-is-full-of-hot-air.html

I suggest you read it. It's a rebuttal to Ratan's arguments. (I didn't know he also calls the Ozone hole a 'hoax').

 

[charrison]

Thanks. That was the problem - I'm using a PS3 browser and it cannot do .pdf's.

OK. I googled instead, and while I found .pdf's, I also found this very useful site:

http://dlcinci.blogspot.com/2009/10/burt-rutan-is-full-of-hot-air.html

I suggest you read it. It's a rebuttal to Ratan's arguments. (I didn't know he also calls the Ozone hole a 'hoax').

I have read quite a bit on both sides and burt so far makes a better argument.

 

[Craig234]

I have read quite a bit on both sides and burt so far makes a better argument.

If you read the link I posted and still side with Burtan, we might not be able to agree on this.

 

[charrison]

If you read the link I posted and still side with Burtan, we might not be able to agree on this.

I have looked at the big picture and remain skeptical of what is being claimed about mann made warming.

The most telling thing about global warming is that nuclear power is largely left out of the list of solutions.

 

[Craig234]

I have looked at the big picture and remain skeptical of what is being claimed about mann made warming.

The most telling thing about global warming is that nuclear power is largely left out of the list of solutions.

Your two resonses imply yo have not read the link I posted. Is that an incorrect implication?

For what it's worth, I'm open to nuclear, it might be a great option. I haven't looked into it enough yet.

 

[charrison]

Your two resonses imply yo have not read the link I posted. Is that an incorrect implication?

I read some of the rebuttals, but it is nothing I have not seen before.

For what it's worth, I'm open to nuclear, it might be a great option. I haven't looked into it enough yet.

Most of the greens pushing global warming are largely ignoring it.

 

[monovillage]

The Medieval Warm Period- With charts and proof to show it was a global phenomenon.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...d-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

"Until about the mid-90s of last century the Medieval Warm Period was for climate researchers an undisputed fact. Therefore in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990 on page 202, there was the graphics 7c [12], in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present. However, the existence of this warm period became quickly a thorn in the side for the scientists responsible. When in 12th century without human influence the climate has been even warmer than at the height of industrialization, why should the current warming have non-natural causes?"

 

[Wardawg1001]

Thanks. That was the problem - I'm using a PS3 browser and it cannot do .pdf's.

OK. I googled instead, and while I found .pdf's, I also found this very useful site:

http://dlcinci.blogspot.com/2009/10/burt-rutan-is-full-of-hot-air.html

I suggest you read it. It's a rebuttal to Ratan's arguments. (I didn't know he also calls the Ozone hole a 'hoax').

I've read the link and most of the "rebuttals." None of them are actual rebuttals. All the site does is specify some of the slides, and send you to a link that "supposedly" refutes the claims made by Rutan. Most of them are to the same site (A Few Things Ill Considered), and largely full of misinformation and poor logic. There are no actual rebuttals on the site you linked, and no direct responses to any of Rutan's claims, research, or logic. Also, your link is to a clearly biased website, and that the article stops before even the half way point of Rutan's presentation, and claims it will post "rebuttals" to the rest later. That was Oct 2nd, 2009. Is this really the best you could find?

 

[Craig234]

I've read the link and most of the "rebuttals." None of them are actual rebuttals. All the site does is specify some of the slides, and send you to a link that "supposedly" refutes the claims made by Rutan. Most of them are to the same site (A Few Things Ill Considered), and largely full of misinformation and poor logic. There are no actual rebuttals on the site you linked, and no direct responses to any of Rutan's claims, research, or logic. Also, your link is to a clearly biased website, and that the article stops before even the half way point of Rutan's presentation, and claims it will post "rebuttals" to the rest later. That was Oct 2nd, 2009. Is this really the best you could find?

I looked at part of it and it seemed better than you described. Recall I can't see the Rutan presentation for comparison.

I don't know if it's the best I can find - I found it looking around for a non-PDF version of the Rutan information, which I didn't find.

You are sounding a bit biased to me - 'it had no rebuttals to his claims. research or logic'.
Well I guess that's surprising for an area claiming to be dedicated to refuting each main Rutan claim.

Perhaps you meant you don't agree with its arguments.

I don't know if anyone has put the effort in for other specific rebuttals.

Have any scredible scientific groups endorsed Rutan's findings? Or even expressed an opinion?

 

[shiner]

I looked at part of it and it seemed better than you described. Recall I can't see the Rutan presentation for comparison.

I don't know if it's the best I can find - I found it looking around for a non-PDF version of the Rutan information, which I didn't find.

You are sounding a bit biased to me - 'it had no rebuttals to his claims. research or logic'.
Well I guess that's surprising for an area claiming to be dedicated to refuting each main Rutan claim.

Perhaps you meant you don't agree with its arguments.

I don't know if anyone has put the effort in for other specific rebuttals.

Have any scredible scientific groups endorsed Rutan's findings? Or even expressed an opinion?

Again....pot, meet kettle.

 

[StageLeft]

No, I don't; not even close. You were dishonest.

Piss off. In the first page somebody quoted where you called people idiots multiple times (post #98) and now you are telling somebody else to watch the attitude? If you're going to play with the big dogs you need to learn to pee in the high grass. Insult people if you want but don't be a prancing fairy and cry foul when they use the same against you (although you wept over his attitude when he didn't even call you a name).

 

[LegendKiller]

Piss off. In the first page somebody quoted where you called people idiots multiple times (post #98) and now you are telling somebody else to watch the attitude? If you're going to play with the big dogs you need to learn to pee in the high grass. Insult people if you want but don't be a prancing fairy and cry foul when they use the same against you (although you wept over his attitude when he didn't even call you a name).

It's how this shitstain works. He runs around all Holier Than Thou, trying to take some type of moral highground. However, he quickly devolves into the same tripe he accuses others of using.

AGW is a hoax. It's akin to technical analysis for stocks. They attempt to take historical data and extrapolate it out into the future. However, what they fail to realize is that historical data is far more complicated and has no bearing on the future. It includes random events that cannot be used to extrapolate the future.

The hubris of climatologists is amazing to me. They are like weathermen, almost always wrong because it is impossible to predict something that is far more complicated and random than we can account for.

 

[nick1985]

You are sounding a bit biased to me

Thanks for the laugh

 

[LegendKiller]

Thanks for the laugh

Yeah, but he's magical. Everybody else is biased, but he's never biased.

 

[Wardawg1001]

You are sounding a bit biased to me - 'it had no rebuttals to his claims. research or logic'.
Well I guess that's surprising for an area claiming to be dedicated to refuting each main Rutan claim.

Perhaps you meant you don't agree with its arguments.

What I meant is that the article you linked to does not specifically respond to Rutan's article, it simply links to other web sites. Those web sites also do not specifically respond to Rutan's article, they are just pre-existing articles dedicated to answering similar questions. Much of the linked to content is years old, and the website he linked to most often was authored by a guy who couldn't even manage to defend many of his own points in the comments sections of his various 'arguments.'

Well I guess that's surprising for an area claiming to be dedicated to refuting each main Rutan claim.

Is this indicative of your standard research into this topic and others which you so vehemently post about here all the time? How little effort did you put into this that you didn't realize he doesn't even address half of Rutan's article? You didn't even to read Rutan's article to know this, the guy clearly states it right on YOUR article.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Can we rename the topic to:

The World vs Craig234 on Climate Change and Idiocy?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Okey dokey.

First, we need to assess the accuracy of whatever data we have and examine the process for bias. That can be done in an open way so we could end the dispute regarding the credibility of the science. Of course we won't because there are a lot of dogs in this fight, but for the rest of us we get to know who to point and laugh at.

Second as Yllus has pointed out there is a whole lot of things which aren't remotely related to cutting CO2. There's no mechanism in place that would keep the government of poor countries taking aid and expanding their control and wealth like they almost always do.

Third, there isn't a real will to lower CO2 emissions, but oh boy there is a lot of people wanting power. If the other 60 wanted to do something substantial, they could have a Manhattan type project developing economically viable solutions. Instead we get cap and trade. C&T isn't R&D.

Fourth, countries will do what is in their best interests. China and India will increase their living standards and they will take the cheapest way out. Until point 3 happens and there is an emphasis on solving, not regulating, there won't be a net decrease in CO2.

Fifth, I wonder if the Progressives get in how they will treat the rest of us idiots? Perhaps re-education centers. Looking at how inferior those who aren't Correct Thinking individuals (I would be included in that group) are, I'm sure the Greater Good will need to find a way to keep us out of decision making.

 

[Darwin333]

Your two resonses imply yo have not read the link I posted. Is that an incorrect implication?

For what it's worth, I'm open to nuclear, it might be a great option. I haven't looked into it enough yet.

Out of curiosity, why haven't you looked into it much? Nuclear has remained a guaranteed way to produce cheap and reliable power while pumping less stuff into the atmosphere. It still produces waste but when given the choice of pumping into the atmosphere or containing almost all of it in a very small space the answer should be obvious. The left should have been pushing for nuclear power over a decade ago if they truly thought global warming was so bad and imminent. Still to this day they think it is such an issue that we should give 10' - 100's of billions to other countries for damages done by emissions yet they are not pushing for nuclear power in any meaningful way (and the renewable push is very half assed). How many nasty ass coal plants could have already been replaced?

Keep in mind, I am in the solar industry. I know what the potential of solar power is and it is huge. However, there are still a TON of hurdles before renewables can make a even a dent in our energy generation needs. Until then we get to keep these dirty ass old power plants with an aging grid.

One of the biggest obstacles is the grid. We had an outstanding opportunity to do a serious overhaul on a good portion of the grid with Obama's stimulus. Not only would it have opened the door for serious renewable energy in this country it would have also provided tons of new good paying jobs. Throw in a line in the bill that 75% of the materials must be American made and now we are providing even more jobs. The Democrats obviously didn't think that it was important enough though. Instead of getting something drastically needed that would have paved the way for clean energy, long term well paying jobs across a ton of industries, and actually trying to lay the infrastructure to seriously reduce our emissions (that the ones writing the bill think is one of the biggest issues we have ever faced) what did we get instead?

Once again, their actions don't align with their words. We could have taken dozens of extremely dirty coal fired plants off line a decade (or more) ago. We could currently be be working on new nuclear plants to get rid of even more dirty coal plants. We could currently be building a smart grid to replace our falling apart grid while also laying the infrastructure that will allow renewables to start making real progress.

At this point I don't think we can afford to really make much of a difference anymore but if we still wanted to give it a shot, paying "climate reparations" or whatever the hell they are calling it isn't the way to do it. I could personally come up with a plan to spend that 100B a year that would drastically change how we generate power in this country, increase national security, conserve energy AND drastically increase the amount of renewable energy we produce eventually allowing us to decom the old ass dirty power plants.

If I can come up with a plan to do that then I know the much smarter people working for the politicians can as well. The only reason I can think that they haven't and would rather give out free money to other countries (money we don't have) is because they truly don't care about the issue.

 

[drebo]

Out of curiosity, why haven't you looked into it much? Nuclear has remained a guaranteed way to produce cheap and reliable power while pumping less stuff into the atmosphere. It still produces waste but when given the choice of pumping into the atmosphere or containing almost all of it in a very small space the answer should be obvious. The left should have been pushing for nuclear power over a decade ago if they truly thought global warming was so bad and imminent. Still to this day they think it is such an issue that we should give 10' - 100's of billions to other countries for damages done by emissions yet they are not pushing for nuclear power in any meaningful way (and the renewable push is very half assed). How many nasty ass coal plants could have already been replaced?

The goal of leftists and greens isn't to "fix" the Earth or to prevent us from "ruining" it. Their goal is global redistribution of wealth (see Copenhagen).

You're absolutely right in that if they really wanted to "fix" the "problem", they would have been advocating nuclear energy from the start. Vitrification neutralizes all nuclear waste and breeder reactors reduce the amount of waste to the point where it's stupid to complain about it.

What the AGW camp wants is political power. Environmentalists are not interested in progress, as evidenced by the lack of support for nuclear power. They want the Stone Age--that's the REAL inconvinient truth.

 

[MotF Bane]

Can we rename the topic to:

The World vs Craig234 on Climate Change and Idiocy?

How about "Craig234's First Self-Pwnage of 2010"?

 

[StageLeft]

Keep in mind, I am in the solar industry.

When will residential customers be able to buy solar for money reasons? The cost now is dear and ROI on a typical install could easily be a couple of decades. I am wondering if the cash for caulkers, with its 50% government match, may be reason for some people to at least consider things like solar water heaters.

 

[charrison]

When will residential customers be able to buy solar for money reasons? The cost now is dear and ROI on a typical install could easily be a couple of decades. I am wondering if the cash for caulkers, with its 50% government match, may be reason for some people to at least consider things like solar water heaters.

With current price trends, in the next coupld of decades solar will be a no brainer for consumers.

Until the govt is dumping money subsidizing consumer rooftop solar, which is probably about the worst way to do it. If they are subsidizing solar, they at least should subsidize larger installs(say big box store installs or govt buildings) so engineering and install cost is easier spread out.

 

[StageLeft]

With current price trends, in the next coupld of decades solar will be a no brainer for consumers.

Until the govt is dumping money subsidizing consumer rooftop solar, which is probably about the worst way to do it. If they are subsidizing solar, they at least should subsidize larger installs(say big box store installs or govt buildings) so engineering and install cost is easier spread out.

Local paper was bragging about a Casino that got $50-70k or something in solar to go green then you read between the lines it's because half of it was paid for by gov, otherwise it's not worth it. To do my house even with 50% of solar covered it wouldn't be worth it. Solar water heaters seem to have a much quicker ROI, though, but solar electric even with 50% off it's still crazy expensive, it would cost me at least $20k out of pocket--and I don't even heat with electric. If we could all get solar, though, that would be awesome.

 

[charrison]

Local paper was bragging about a Casino that got $50-70k or something in solar to go green then you read between the lines it's because half of it was paid for by gov, otherwise it's not worth it. To do my house even with 50% of solar covered it wouldn't be worth it. Solar water heaters seem to have a much quicker ROI, though, but solar electric even with 50% off it's still crazy expensive, it would cost me at least $20k out of pocket--and I don't even heat with electric. If we could all get solar, though, that would be awesome.

I agree it is crazy enpensive, so it only works with significant subsidy.