Conservatives and climate change

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Please provide detailed, verifiable and unbiased evidence support those claims.

Read Climate Audit for the "trust" part. For the money part, here's a bit from the Penn State investigation into Mann's conduct:

The results achieved by Dr. Mann in the period 1999-2010, despite these stringent requirements, speak for themselves: He served as principal investigator or co-principal investigator on five NOAA-funded and four NSF-funded research projects. During the same period, Dr. Mann also served as co-investigator of five additional NSF-and NOAA-funded research projects, as well as on projects funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR). This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research.

.

 

[citizenzen]

For the money part, here's a bit from the Penn State investigation into Mann's conduct ...

It's curious ... the point you bolded. I think you overlooked this part ...

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research.​

So now you're dinging a guy for doing his job well?

 

[lomiller]

It's curious ... the point you bolded. I think you overlooked this part ...

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research.​

So now you're dinging a guy for doing his job well?

I agree, that had to be the strangest attempt at criticism I've ever seen

 

[Furcifer]

Models may contain uncertainty, but this is not the same thing as "poorly understood" (for example there is uncertainty about what the next role of dice will be, even though the dice are well understood)

Nonsense. I'm glad this isn't being posted in the science forum. The uncertainty is a direct result of several phenomenon including cloud cover being poorly understood, not as a result of "chance".

Or as a famous man once said "...God doesn't play dice with the World"

 

[bit_pattern]

Nonsense. I'm glad this isn't being posted in the science forum. The uncertainty is a direct result of several phenomenon including cloud cover being poorly understood, not as a result of "chance".

Or as a famous man once said "...God doesn't play dice with the World"

And that man was WRONG, he lost that fight!

 

[Corsair 115]

I've never seen something so filled with hateful crazy that wasn't a plot to kill James Bond.

I am so stealing this line. It's freaking brilliant!

 

[bit_pattern]

Internet-tough-guy violent fantasies aside, your plan as a couple of flaws.

First of all, a snail darter is a fish, and DDT is an insecticide. (Looks like your knowledge of biology and chemistry is right up there with your knowledge of climatology.) As hilarious as it would be to watch a bunch of rednecks stomping around in a riverbed and using insecticide to try to kill a fish, it's probably not the most effective method to achieve your goal.

Secondly, lefty liberal loons are a wily bunch. They would probably be crafty enough to plan their protest on a day when Larry the Cable Guy was in town or McDonald's reintroduced the McRib. So your "minions" would be otherwise occupied.

But I will give your plan points for theatricality. It's runs the gamut from insanely stupid ("Let's go stomp some fish!") to just insane ("Let's poison an entire ecosystem!"). I've never seen something so filled with hateful crazy that wasn't a plot to kill James Bond.

Brilliant!

 

[stokes234]

I admit that the inclusion of wind power, although in far smaller amounts than radical ecofreakhippies would prefer, does nothing to reduce carbon.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf

That report has been shown to be based on non-peer reviewed research, taken from the website of a "long standing critic of wind power".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/09/wind-turbines-increasing-carbon-emissions

Uuuunlucky.

 

[Travis]

Pffft! You call that a proper list? Where's the "Climate change is a giant global scam concocted by money-hungry scientists to make a quick buck" option? Or the "Climate change is a invention of the leftist/liberal environmentalist lobby to impose their green world view on everyone" option?

Darn, I knew I overlooked something.

I thank you for taking the time to do that and for being honest.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Nonsense. I'm glad this isn't being posted in the science forum. The uncertainty is a direct result of several phenomenon including cloud cover being poorly understood, not as a result of "chance".

Or as a famous man once said "...God doesn't play dice with the World"

Should we give you a private forum for you two? What's the business of you appearing out of the blue in any thread just to address lomiller with provoking "nonsense"-s and other hollow yet emotionally tinted expressions? Are you that transparent? That's why you write such word salads after those "nonsense"-s?

 

[Furcifer]

Should we give you a private forum for you two? What's the business of you appearing out of the blue in any thread just to address lomiller with provoking "nonsense"-s and other hollow yet emotionally tinted expressions? Are you that transparent? That's why you write such word salads after those "nonsense"-s?

Not that it's any business of yours, but occasionally a thread makes it to the top of "General Topics" that I haven't seen before and it catches my attention. If I'm interested I usually respond to the most glaringly ignorant post I can find within the first few pages of that thread. Sometimes, such as in this case, I respond to the second most glaringly ignorant post on the page.

I really don't know if you're being serious and don't understand my first post in this thread or if you're attempting to master the ironic use of the term "word salad".

 

[L.Y.S.]

Mhaze, are you willing to respond to this thread? Or is explaining the reasoning behind your comments too much to ask?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Not that it's any business of yours, but occasionally a thread makes it to the top of "General Topics" that I haven't seen before and it catches my attention. If I'm interested I usually respond to the most glaringly ignorant post I can find within the first few pages of that thread. Sometimes, such as in this case, I respond to the second most glaringly ignorant post on the page.

I really don't know if you're being serious and don't understand my first post in this thread or if you're attempting to master the ironic use of the term "word salad".

More poppycock!

Lomiller has the distinctive style of dismissing a false general rule by giving the most outstanding violation of the rule. It's the easiest way to debate in a bonafide environment. He forgets this is not it. You always take it as a new general rule and continue your preach within a new field of discussion, as it's easier than revise your false general rule and it doesn't require from you to really know nothing, after all.

But, wait a minute, here it wasn't your false general rule. You just selected your favourite partenaire here to continue with your low quality epistemology on the whole subject.

As this has been evident from quite some time, I reckon you're looking for some other thing. Next time -the umptenth- you do so, we'll know better. That "glaringly ignorant" of yours can be easily understood as one "I hate you" common in quarrels.

 

[Furcifer]

More poppycock!

Lomiller has the distinctive style of dismissing a false general rule by giving the most outstanding violation of the rule. It's the easiest way to debate in a bonafide environment. He forgets this is not it. You always take it as a new general rule and continue your preach within a new field of discussion, as it's easier than revise your false general rule and it doesn't require from you to really know nothing, after all.

But, wait a minute, here it wasn't your false general rule. You just selected your favourite partenaire here to continue with your low quality epistemology on the whole subject.

As this has been evident from quite some time, I reckon you're looking for some other thing. Next time -the umptenth- you do so, we'll know better. That "glaringly ignorant" of yours can be easily understood as one "I hate you" common in quarrels.

You were saying something about word salad?

What lolmiller said was factually incorrect, you don't seem to be disputing that you just seem to object to it having been pointed out. I could care less what motivations you want to ascribe to it, it's wrong as stated and needs to be corrected.

As for the rest, I don't "hate" anyone. I'd suggest you hold a mirror to your posts in the future because you seem to be suffering from projection.

 

[mhaze]

More poppycock!

Lomiller has the distinctive style of dismissing a false general rule by giving the most outstanding violation of the rule. It's the easiest way to debate in a bonafide environment. He forgets this is not it. You always take it as a new general rule and continue your preach within a new field of discussio.....

Incorrect description and analysis of two individuals debating technique, and by definition a derail into individual personalities instead of the topic.

Also, interestingly, about the 6th attempted derail into a "definition of a word" in this thread.

That report has been shown to be based on non-peer reviewed research, taken from the website of a "long standing critic of wind power".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/09/wind-turbines-increasing-carbon-emissions

Uuuunlucky.

Splendid! So you don't need subsidies per kw hour, plus subsidies and tax credits for the construction of wind farms. The ridiculous and stupid equation of a monetary loser at the start, and a loser for every hour the farm is operating, is false. You can finance wind farms with private money, and capitalists can make a profit during their (extremely short for energy source) lifetime without any public dollars.

Nope, nope, and nope.

In any case I did lay out that wind power would be permissible but would require a cost benefit study and positive results on it.



*****

Cost? To who? It's all private industry.

Oops...

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of nuclear plants, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding, including thorium reactors. A minimum of twenty reactors per year for ten years.

Seems this so-called "private industry" needs quite a bit of assistance from Big Government, not the least of which includes trampling the First Amendment.

Indeed, you too stand up for the First Amendment rights of snail darters. Oh, and regarding thorium reactors? I don't think the regulatory commission approves of experimentation in reactor design within the scope of a private company. We do need regulation. But yeah, if you want to have just old designs built, we'll let India and China design, test and build thorium reactors. Oh, and by the way? Does my proposal include shutting down the Dept. of Energy or changing it's mission? Nope. Not at all. Should we be engaged in research on thorium reactors regardless of the proposed fast build program?

That's where you cast your vote as a knuckle dragging luddite or as someone who can see a way forward from the current situation.

 

[DC]

You were saying something about word salad?

What lolmiller said was factually incorrect, you don't seem to be disputing that you just seem to object to it having been pointed out. I could care less what motivations you want to ascribe to it, it's wrong as stated and needs to be corrected.

As for the rest, I don't "hate" anyone. I'd suggest you hold a mirror to your posts in the future because you seem to be suffering from projection.

but somehow you didn't point out Mhazes false claims why not?

 

[stokes234]

Splendid! So you don't need subsidies per kw hour, plus subsidies and tax credits for the construction of wind farms. The ridiculous and stupid equation of a monetary loser at the start, and a loser for every hour the farm is operating, is false. You can finance wind farms with private money, and capitalists can make a profit during their (extremely short for energy source) lifetime without any public dollars.

I was addressing your posting of a debunked claim that wind farms produce more carbon than they prevent the production of. Finance doesn't even feature in that claim.

My own view on wind farms is that they may not be financially viable as an energy source without subsidies to private companies, but they are beneficial to society as a whole because they reduce our carbon output and the rate at which oil is depleted, slowing down climate change and peak oil.

 

[mhaze]

I was addressing your posting of a debunked claim that wind farms produce more carbon than they prevent the production of. Finance doesn't even feature in that claim.

My own view on wind farms is that they may not be financially viable as an energy source without subsidies to private companies, but they are beneficial to society as a whole because they reduce our carbon output and the rate at which oil is depleted, slowing down climate change and peak oil.

Okay, those I'd eliminate entirely. Those ones that by your admission are totally worthless economically. But as noted, just from existing mothballed wind farms, equipment could be moved to sites where it might have considerable utility and value. If not, scrap the junk.

Oh. And don't build more worthless junk. Build stuff that has "value". That means it's worth more than it cost, and that means that it can be financed, and built, and ran profitably.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Models may contain uncertainty, but this is not the same thing as "poorly understood" (for example there is uncertainty about what the next role of dice will be, even though the dice are well understood)

What lolmiller said was factually incorrect, ....

There's nothing wrong there but your own statement. Another mistake on your part, as you always seem to mistake a model with the real thing it models.

but somehow you did point out Mhazes false claims why not?

Did he refer something about my "conversation" with 3bodyproblem/furcifer?

I have mhaze and other couple in ignore. Please, let me know if I have to pay attention to what they say. It would have to be important -hardly ever it is-, not loud -almost always it is-.

To be original in this thread, what about some takes of Romney, Paul, Huntsman, Gingrich and Santorum on global warming and how does have it to do with "being conservative"? That's what I hoped I'd find in this thread.

 

[BenBurch]

Nonsense. I'm glad this isn't being posted in the science forum. The uncertainty is a direct result of several phenomenon including cloud cover being poorly understood, not as a result of "chance".

Or as a famous man once said "...God doesn't play dice with the World"

As has been explained before, we can set limits on the degree of uncertainty, and they are small enough not to effect the outcome.